Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
These initiatives were driven by Kelvin Hopkins, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Kelvin Hopkins has not been granted any Urgent Questions
Kelvin Hopkins has not introduced any legislation before Parliament
Workers (Definition and Rights) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Chris Stephens (SNP)
Low-level Letter Boxes (Prohibition) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Vicky Ford (CON)
Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Karen Lee (LAB)
Fetal Dopplers (Regulation) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Antoinette Sandbach (LDEM)
Live Animal Exports (Prohibition) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Theresa Villiers (CON)
Improvement of Rail Passenger Services (Use of Disruption Payments) Bill 2015-16
Sponsor - Joan Ryan (TIG)
Following remaining recruitment, the Department will have five full-time officials working on Eco Design and Energy Labelling Directives.
ICF International are contracted by the team to provide technical advice and this is supplemented by support from analysts across DECC’s Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.
DECC have appointed the National Measurement Office to monitor compliance and enforce the Eco Design and Energy Labelling implementing measures within the UK.
At the time of publication of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) consultation document, the Government estimated that ESOS would have a net present value ranging from £900m to £3bn, with a central estimate of £1.9bn, measured over the period 2015-2030. The Final Stage Impact Assessment, published alongside the Government’s Response to the ESOS Consultation, took account of new evidence which led to it revising down the estimated net present value, to between £600m and £2.7bn, with a central estimate of £1.6bn. The reasons for this change are set out on pages 17-19 of the Final Stage Impact Assessment, which can be found at the link below:
Following the end of a two year agreement with the Department, Peter Boyd completed his formal role as Chair for Energy Efficiency Deployment Office in May 2014.
The Department has decided not to continue a Chair role for this Office.
The Government is committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation and effective enforcement of it. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have 173 staff dedicated to the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage.
The Government is already taking tougher action on employers that break minimum wage law. We have made it simpler to name and shame employers that don't pay the national minimum wage and increased the financial penalty that employers pay for breaking the law.
As stated on page 6 of the consultation document, the Government has confirmed that ECO is intended to be ambitious and long term, extending through at least until 2022. The precise shape of the obligation beyond 2017 will be consulted on in due course, and is not in scope of the current consultation exercise which focuses on the period through to 2017.
The original question 10 was unclear, in that it requested views on the proposed ECO target in the obligation period to March 2017, but followed a series of specific questions (now questions 10, 11, 12 and 13 in the amended consultation document) seeking views on targets for each of the ECO sub-obligations in that period. As explained on the DECC website, the question was therefore removed in the interests of clarity and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
The consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) closed on 16 April 2014, and the Government expects to publish its response before Parliament rises for Summer recess.
The Government has already confirmed that the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is intended to be ambitious and long-term, extending through until at least 2022.
The recent consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) focussed on the period between now and 2017. The precise shape of the obligation after March 2017 will be the subject of a separate consultation in due course.
As highlighted in the answer given on 24 January to PQ 210434 the SFO can neither confirm nor deny if these individuals are subject to any investigation. The SFO carries out all of its work in compliance with legislation.
The SFO also works collaboratively with law enforcement and regulatory partners to combat serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption and share information, both in the UK and abroad. This includes membership of the newly launched multi-agency National Economic Crime Centre which was set up by the Government following the 2017 Economic Crime Review to ensure a more effective law enforcement response to economic crime.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is aware of the allegations made publicly about Sudhir and Bhanu Choudhrie. The SFO can neither confirm nor deny if Sudhir or Bhanu Choudhrie are currently subject to investigation by the SFO, or what, if any, representations the SFO has received about them.
In order to protect the investigative process it is not always possible, or even desirable for investigative bodies to confirm whether or not an individual or organisation is subject to an investigation, or provide any details of matters under investigation.
The SFO proactively publishes information about its cases on its website whenever it is appropriate.
The Attorney General and Solicitor General superintend the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and are the ministers responsible to Parliament for the work of the SFO. The SFO was created and given its functions and powers by the Criminal Justice Act 1987; it exercises those functions on behalf of the Crown. It is a non-ministerial department headed by the Director. The SFO is therefore independent and makes its own investigative and prosecutorial decisions independently. Part of the role of the Law Officer is to protect that independence.
The SFO also forms one of the ‘Law Officers’ Departments, and as such constitutes a public arm’s length body sponsored by the Attorney General’s Office. The terms of our sponsorship arrangement are set out in the Framework Agreement between the AGO and the SFO which was published on 22 January, replacing the 2009 Protocol document. The Framework Agreement is agreed between the Director of the SFO and the Law Officers.
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is aware of the allegations made publicly about Sudhir and Bhanu Choudhrie. The SFO can neither confirm nor deny if Sudhir or Bhanu Choudhrie are currently subject to investigation by the SFO, or what, if any, representations the SFO has received about them.
In order to protect the investigative process it is not always possible, or even desirable for investigative bodies to confirm whether or not an individual or organisation is subject to an investigation, or provide any details of matters under investigation.
The SFO proactively publishes information about its cases on its website whenever it is appropriate.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes cases that are referred to it by the police and does not have any investigative function.
The SFO has sufficient funding to carry out its work. Funding arrangements were reviewed in April 2018 when cost-neutral changes were made to the SFO’s core budget enabling it to work flexibly and efficiently. This allows the SFO to carry out its work, including money laundering investigations that fit within its statutory remit.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
During my meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel we committed to working together on a wide range of areas including defence and security. We discussed the important work our countries do together and committed to talk further about how we can deepen this cooperation.
I discussed a range of issues with President Trump, including defence and security issues. The UK Government remains determined to continue to work with partners across the international community to prevent proliferation and to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament.
The Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell (ETIAC) launched as part of the Defence Innovation Initiative by the Secretary of State for Defence had not been established when evidence was drawn for the National Cyber Security Strategy, so it did not make a direct contribution. However, officials from the Ministry of Defence and Home Office (who currently staff ETIAC) did contribute to its conclusions on technology and innovation, as did a range of other stakeholders across Government, industry and academia.
As train operating companies generally only work through the Department of Transport, we have no plans at present to add them to the list of Strategic Suppliers, which is reviewed on a regular basis.
The Department has no such plans.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.
The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, regulates the Recognised Professional Bodies on behalf of my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Recognised Professional Bodies, when discharging their regulatory functions, are required to act in a way which is compatible with statutory regulatory objectives. The Insolvency Service has a range of powers exercisable against the Recognised Professional Bodies if these objectives are not met.
The number of insolvency practitioners licensed by each of the 5 Recognised Professional Bodies is published every year as part of The Insolvency Service’s ‘Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation’. The most recent report was published on 11 May 2018 and is available on Gov.uk
Only individuals, not firms, can be licensed to act as insolvency practitioners.
The Insolvency Service maintains a public register of insolvency practitioners, including the names of firms, which is available online.
The insolvency of a party will not necessarily prevent the use of existing dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration. If, however, insolvency related remedies are sought, for example in relation to claims against directors, preference claims, claims to set aside transactions at undervalue, steps will need to be undertaken to ensure appropriate authority is provided by the court.
Insolvency practitioners deal with a number of conflicting interests and their authorising bodies cannot intervene in, or adjudicate upon, disputes of a commercial or legal nature. Ultimately, it is for the Courts to adjudicate upon commercial disputes and disagreements about the application of insolvency law.
Where there are concerns about the actions of an insolvency practitioner, these should in the first instance be raised directly with the practitioner. If this fails to resolve the matter, then a complaint can be made through the Insolvency Service’s Complaints Gateway at: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner. In June 2013, we established this new gateway to provide a single point of entry for complaints about insolvency practitioners following collaborative discussions between the Insolvency Service and the bodies that authorise insolvency practitioners. The Gateway handles circa 700 complaints annually.
Given the existing options for resolving disputes, I am not proposing to make any changes at this time.
The following UK bodies have regulatory responsibility for enforcing compliance with the Companies Act 2006:
Public Bodies (under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000):
Companies House
Financial Reporting Council
Insolvency Service
Other:
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
Chartered Accountants Ireland
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
Takeover Appeal Board
Takeover Panel
This answer does not consider obligations on companies and other businesses generally such as employment regulation, environmental regulation or for reasons of public safety, or those bodies that have general responsibilities in respect of criminal investigations and prosecutions. The categorisation of bodies reflects the categorisation used for government accounting purposes and the application of the requirements of managing public money.
Under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986, my rt. hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises certain independent professional bodies, called Recognised Professional Bodies, for the purpose of authorising their members to act as insolvency practitioners. There are currently five Recognised Professional Bodies:
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales;
Insolvency Practitioners Association;
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants;
Institute of Charted Accountants of Scotland; and
Chartered Accountants Ireland.
The Recognised Professional Bodies enforce compliance with insolvency laws by insolvency practitioners they authorise. The Insolvency Service, an executive agency of the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, regulates the Recognised Professional Bodies on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Insolvency Service also enforces compliance with insolvency laws through a range of powers exercisable against a Recognised Professional Body and directly against an insolvency practitioner.
Documents filed with Companies House should be legible and enable Companies House to make an acceptable copy of the document for the public record. Documents are examined for legibility before they are accepted for registration and may be returned if an examiner believes they do not meet the legibility requirements. Should Companies House receive a public complaint, or become aware in some other way, that a document is not legible, it will contact the company and request a new copy of the document.
When Thames Water Utilities Limited files its accounts for 2017-18 they will be subject to Companies House’s usual examination checks. These include checks to ensure a legible copy can be made for the Public Record. If Companies House is not satisfied a legible copy can be made it will reject them and ask for a copy that meets the requirements.
Data that relies on company filings such as annual reports as its source shows that, as at 27 June 2018, 3,263 UK companies report that they have between 500 and 1,000 employees; and 3,573 UK companies report that they have more than 1,000 employees.
Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.
Unless it is already in voluntary liquidation, a company may only be wound up by a petition to the Court. There are no provisions in the Companies Act 2006 for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to present a petition to wind a company up; these are contained in the Insolvency Act 1986.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy may present a petition, as provided in the Insolvency Act 1986 only if he decides it is in the public interest to do so, having considered a report of information obtained by a statutory investigation into the company's affairs. I am not currently aware of any ongoing investigation into Business Bank Italy Limited.
The Insolvency Service is currently bringing disqualification proceedings against a number of former directors of BHS and connected companies. As these matters may now be tested in Court it would not be appropriate to comment or issue further information at this time.Once the disqualification proceedings are complete government will consider what detail it is appropriate to publish, having full regard to any legal restrictions on publication and also the legitimate public interest in the cause of the BHS failure.
The Secretary of State has delegated responsibility for overseeing the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) to the Financial Reporting Council (FRC). The FRC must be satisfied that an RSB meets the conditions set out in Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006, as amended by the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016, in order for it to be recognised. In addition, as the competent authority for statutory audit, the FRC must be satisfied that each RSB has the necessary arrangements in place to fulfil the audit regulatory tasks delegated to it by the FRC.
If necessary where there is a failure to meet the required conditions the FRC can reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to an RSB. If an RSB does not meet the Schedule 10 requirements, the FRC can remove the body’s recognition as a supervisory body.
The Department has identified a number of partner organisations as performing regulatory functions. They are the British Hallmarking Council, the Coal Authority, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Copyright Tribunal, the Financial Reporting Council, the Insolvency Service, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, the Oil and Gas Authority and the UK Space Agency.
All our regulatory bodies are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with the exception of the Financial Reporting Council which is subject to the Act for some but not all of its functions. The Financial Reporting Council and its status under the Freedom of Information Act is currently being reviewed by Sir John Kingman. We expect the review to report at the end of 2018.
Companies House does not hold this information. Having a criminal conviction does not preclude a person from being a director. Consequently, Companies House does not ask for or record this information.
The Department is not responsible for carrying out checks on dividends paid by companies to ensure that they do not exceed their distributable reserves.
The Government has no plans to appoint such a committee. The work of the Financial Reporting Council has been reviewed by committees in both Houses of Parliament and we would expect this to continue.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) agreed a disciplinary scheme with the accountancy professional bodies in 2004 meeting requirements in company law for it to have in place arrangements with the recognised supervisory bodies for the purposes of disciplining auditors. The funding basis for the scheme was that the professional bodies would fund the costs of disciplinary actions and that any costs and fines ordered against the members of their bodies would be paid to those bodies.
New statutory powers for the FRC to impose fines on auditing firms were introduced in the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016. The Regulations require that fines imposed under the powers must be transferred by the FRC to the Secretary of State.
The FRC continues to maintain a disciplinary scheme for non-statutory audit matters: for fines recovered under those arrangements, the fines continue to be paid over to the relevant accountancy professional bodies.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) oversees of the work of recognised supervisory bodies (RSBs) as the Secretary of State’s delegate and the UK’s competent authority for audit. The FRC is designated for these purposes by the Companies Act 2006 and certain secondary legislation. If the RSBs breach the requirements put in place under that legislation, the FRC can remove the bodies’ recognition and can also reclaim any audit regulatory functions that it has delegated to them.
Shareholding through nominee accounts is commonly used for legitimate investment and commercial reasons. The Government has no plans to introduce legislative proposals to prohibit nominee shareholdings.
Companies are already required to identify all of their shareholders. Companies Act 2006 requires companies to keep a register of members and enter the details of members in this register (in the case of a company limited by shares, the members are the shareholders). The register of members must be kept available for inspection at the company’s registered office and any person may request to inspect it on payment of any fee set by the company (the size of which is limited by legislation).
Companies House does not have powers to verify the authenticity of company directors, secretaries and registered office addresses. However, it does carry out a number of checks on all information received; ensuring it is valid, complete, correctly formatted and in compliance with company filing requirements. The obligation to ensure the information is accurate lies with the company and its directors. An offence is committed by the company if it files false information. Companies House maintains one of the most open and extensively accessed companies’ register in the world. It is a powerful tool in identifying false, inaccurate or possibly fraudulent information. With many eyes viewing the data, errors, omissions or worse can be identified and reported.
No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House. The company has already filed documents providing appropriate information and terminating the inappropriate appointment.
None of the Recognised Professional Bodies who regulate insolvency are subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
The following bodies are authorised to act as Recognised Supervisory Bodies under the Companies Act 2006: The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; Chartered Accountants Ireland; The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland; and the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. They are independent private bodies and are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
It would not be appropriate for details of the Insolvency Service’s ongoing investigation into BHS to be made public at this point, as that may prejudice the outcome of any criminal or civil cases which arise from it.
The Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 inserts new sections 156A-C in the Companies Act 2006 that will require that all company directors should be natural persons and prohibit (subject to exceptions) the appointment of corporate entities as directors. The Government will bring forward regulations to set out the exceptions and commence this requirement when Parliamentary time allows.
Companies House’s role is to incorporate and dissolve limited companies. It registers the information that UK companies are required to disclose and makes it available to the public. Companies House does not have a front-line role in combatting money laundering but it can support and assist law enforcement in their investigations.
Company House carries out a number of checks on all information received, ensuring it is valid, complete, and in compliance with company filing requirements. When it detects or receives intelligence relating to suspicious actions, including possible money laundering, Companies House will report the information to the relevant enforcement body.
No action has been taken at this time against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing inappropriate information in Italian at Companies House.
The Nuclear Industry Council last met on 22 February. The meeting included a broad-ranging discussion to help inform the proposed nuclear Sector Deal as part of the Industrial Strategy.
The Council – which is co-chaired by Lord Hutton and myself – has a smaller membership than previously, comprised of executive-level representatives from across the nuclear industry and relevant parts of government, to facilitate a more strategic approach and broader focus. The full membership list is available on the NIA’s website: https://www.niauk.org/
The Low Carbon Contracts Company Ltd. (LCCC) monitors and enforces the Secretary of State Investor Agreement (SOSIA), and will impose any sanctions as necessary.
The safe decommissioning of the Pile Fuel Storage Pond is a priority of the hazard and risk reduction programme at Sellafield. The entire bulk stocks of historic nuclear fuel have now been removed from this nearly 70 year old facility, and the assessed radioactive hazard risk associated with the facility has been reduced by 70%.
The current life time plan budget for emptying the Pile Fuel Storage Pond of fuel and waste, and decommissioning the facility in line with the agreed end state for the Sellafield site is approximately £1bn.
All Freedom of Information requests are considered on a case-by-case basis taking into account all the circumstances of the case at the time the request is made. If the Department considered that information within the scope of a request would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it) and the balance of the public interest favoured withholding it, subject to applicable law, then the information would not be disclosed.
Queen Mary University of London, as the research organisation which held the award, is responsible for the management of the study, including the investigation of any concerns relating to research conduct and research integrity.
Whilst the Medical Research Council (MRC) was one of the funders of the PACE trial, the responsibility for the management of the trial rested with the host research institution, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). This responsibility included oversight of the trial and the investigation of any well-founded allegations of misconduct that are brought to its attention. As part of this oversight, in accordance with MRC guidance on best practice, a trial steering committee was set up and supported by various sub-groups, including a data monitoring committee. The MRC was an observer on the trial steering committee.
Anyone wishing to raise concerns to over the conduct of individual researchers or research programmes is advised to contact QMUL in the first instance to allow the University to investigate appropriately. It would be inappropriate for BEIS to intervene in such investigations or to impose sanctions against researchers.
Queen Mary University of London, as the research organisation which held the award, is responsible for the management of the study, including the investigation of any concerns relating to research conduct and research integrity.
Whilst the Medical Research Council (MRC) was one of the funders of the PACE trial, the responsibility for the management of the trial rested with the host research institution, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL). This responsibility included oversight of the trial and the investigation of any well-founded allegations of misconduct that are brought to its attention. As part of this oversight, in accordance with MRC guidance on best practice, a trial steering committee was set up and supported by various sub-groups, including a data monitoring committee. The MRC was an observer on the trial steering committee.
Anyone wishing to raise concerns to over the conduct of individual researchers or research programmes is advised to contact QMUL in the first instance to allow the University to investigate appropriately. It would be inappropriate for BEIS to intervene in such investigations or to impose sanctions against researchers.
Management of individual staff within the Medical Research Council is a matter for the MRC as the legal employer.
The MRC welcomes applications to support research into any aspect of human health and these are subject to peer review and judged in open competition. Awards are made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made. The MRC has promoted research into Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalopathy (CFS/ME) through highlight notices for a number of years.
Concerning dissatisfaction of patients, I will write to the Chair of the Medical Research Council to request an account of the development of relevant policies and in particular how CFS/ME patients’ views have been considered. I will deposit a copy of his reply in the Libraries of the House.
My Rt Hon Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has not held any discussions with Acas on this matter. This is an operational matter for Acas.
Acas has provided regular updates to officials at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on its programme of transformation to better meet the needs of service users and deliver its vision for 2021.
Reform and other business processes are an operational matter for Acas.
There have been numerous discussions with trade union representatives on concentrating helpline services in four locations and other aspects of change. A PCS representative was included in the working group looking at the proposals on office structure in the North West.
Acas is committed to maintaining the service it provides during this 12-18 month period of change and will continue to monitor performance standards to ensure that this is the case.
The business change programme involves the closure of a single office (Liverpool) in the only economic region in Great Britain which had two Acas offices – the other one is located in Manchester. The closure will not result in any significant reduction in overall staff numbers.
Acas conducted an equality impact assessment to inform its decision to have one office in each economic area, including the North West. The assessment highlighted that staff with caring responsibilities or a disability would potentially be most impacted as they may be less able to travel to another office to work. Further equality impact assessments will be carried out as necessary to inform subsequent options and decisions.
The management of energy companies’ retail operations, including the location of its staff, is a commercial matter for the individual companies.
The new EU Audit Regulation (537/2014) prohibits the provision of tax services by audit firms to their audit clients. This includes services relating to tax avoidance. The prohibition will apply where those audit clients are banks, building societies, insurers and issuers of shares or debt securities on a regulated market in the EU (e.g. the main market of the London Stock Exchange). The Regulation was agreed by the European Parliament and the Council in 2014 and will apply from 17 June 2016.
It is important we have a vibrant, dynamic energy market where energy companies work hard to attract customers though customer service as well as price. The management of retail operations, such as answering enquiries and addressing complaints from their consumers, however, are commercial matters for the individual companies.
This is an operational matter for Ofcom, the independent communications regulator. DCMS officials have spoken to Ofcom and have been informed that Ofcom has been investigating complaints about the current output of Choice FM and, in doing so, has had to consider a significant amount of material. Ofcom is currently finalising its decision and will publish this very shortly.
Church and faith schools play an important role in promoting integration and an understanding of different faiths and communities. We will continue to work closely with Church and faith schools to promote and support integration and will set out further details in due course. The Department will provide further information on the Schools that work for everyone consultation, including in relation to the 50% cap on faith-based admissions, in due course.
Budgets for 16 to 19-year-old education are set on the basis of the established 16 to 19 funding rates and formula, using estimates of student numbers.
In 2014-15 and 2015-16, student numbers and associated costs were lower than these estimates, which resulted in lower spending than the forecast, by £135m and £132m respectively, representing 2.2% of the budget.
Final expenditure is not yet available for 2016-17 and will be published in the Education and Skills Funding Agency accounts shortly.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before prorogation.”
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
A total of eight 16 to 19 free schools have opened in 2014-15. We hold student recruitment data for seven of these schools who have, in total, recruited 686 students in that period.
After contracts for site acquisition and construction are finalised, and the cost of the project is no longer commercially sensitive, we will publish details of the capital funding received by each open free school here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-funding-for-open-free-schools. None of the schools opened in 2014-15 are at this stage, so the data is not yet published.
In the academic year 2014/15, there were two maintained schools and 29 academies that established a new sixth form. The total revenue funding allocated to these sixth forms in 2014/15 was £11.4 million and the total capital funding identified for these sixth forms was £16.6 million.
The Department for Education has provided £6.7 million in revenue funding to 16-19 academies that opened since January 2014. This figure includes £1.6 million in start-up funding. All of the 16-19 academies that opened since January 2014 are free schools.
The Department publishes details of capital funding allocated to free schools once contracts for site acquisition and renovation are finalised and once the cost of the project is no longer commercially sensitive. None of the schools opened since January 2014 is at this stage, so the data is not yet published. Once available, details of capital funding for free schools is published at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-funding-for-open-free-schools
In 2013/14, the latest year for which data is available, there were 12,500 students enrolled in those new sixth forms which had opened between 2011/12 and 2013/14. The Department for Education does not have records for new sixth forms prior to 2011.
In 2013/14, the latest year for which data is available, there were 3,000 students enrolled in those 16-19 academy and free schools that opened since 2010.[1]
This figure does not include those that opened in 2014 as there is no student data yet available. The data sources used are the School Census 2013/14 S02 and Individualised Learner Record 2013/14 R14. The figures include funded learners only.
[1] Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.
Information on the number of students who entered AS level qualifications in the 2012/13 academic year by school type is provided in the attached table.
The information requested is not currently available. Provisional information for students entered for A2 levels in the 2013/14 academic year will be available in October 2014.
Key stage 4 results for individual schools, including academies, are published online in Performance Tables[1]. A copy of the list of schools and academies that established a sixth form since 2011, with their current details, has been placed in the House Library.
The net cost of unfilled places referred to in my previous answer was based on the funding per student for each individual institution and the number of students recruited in that institution above or below the allocated number as appropriate. This figure was then adjusted to take into the account the sixth form element of funds recovered by the Education Funding Agency from those academies which are funded on the basis of estimated pupil numbers but which educated fewer pupils than had been provided for in those estimates.
The net cost of unfilled places referred to in my previous answer was based on the funding per student for each individual institution and the number of students recruited in that institution above or below the allocated number as appropriate. This figure was then adjusted to take into the account the sixth form element of funds recovered by the Education Funding Agency from those academies which are funded on the basis of estimated pupil numbers but which educated fewer pupils than had been provided for in those estimates.
The total number of students funded in 2012/13 in school sixth forms, academy sixth forms and 16-19 free schools established since September 2011 was 9,610 and the total actual number of students enrolled was 7,775. The numbers by institution type are as follows:
Institution Type | 2012/13 Funded Students | 2012/13 Actual Students |
Academy | 5276 | 4152 |
16-19 Free School | 220 | 197 |
School Sixth Form | 4114 | 3426 |
Total | 9610 | 7775 |
The majority of academies and all maintained schools are funded on a lagged basis so that numbers recruited in one year will then determine the allocation in the following year.Some academies are funded on the basis of estimated numbers, and their funding is then adjusted based on actual recruitment. The impact on sixth form funding of any such adjustments is included in these figures.
The approximate total net cost of unfilled places in respect of the above in 2012/13 was £5.76 million. Institutions with unfilled places will have their funding reduced in the following year. The costs by institution type are as follows:
Institution Type | Net Cost of Unfilled Places |
SSF | £3.24 million |
Academy | £2.39 million |
16-19 Free School | £0.13 million |
Total | £5.76 million |
The total number of students funded in 2012/13 in school sixth forms, academy sixth forms and 16-19 free schools established since September 2011 was 9,610 and the total actual number of students enrolled was 7,775. The numbers by institution type are as follows:
Institution Type | 2012/13 Funded Students | 2012/13 Actual Students |
Academy | 5276 | 4152 |
16-19 Free School | 220 | 197 |
School Sixth Form | 4114 | 3426 |
Total | 9610 | 7775 |
The majority of academies and all maintained schools are funded on a lagged basis so that numbers recruited in one year will then determine the allocation in the following year.Some academies are funded on the basis of estimated numbers, and their funding is then adjusted based on actual recruitment. The impact on sixth form funding of any such adjustments is included in these figures.
The approximate total net cost of unfilled places in respect of the above in 2012/13 was £5.76 million. Institutions with unfilled places will have their funding reduced in the following year. The costs by institution type are as follows:
Institution Type | Net Cost of Unfilled Places |
SSF | £3.24 million |
Academy | £2.39 million |
16-19 Free School | £0.13 million |
Total | £5.76 million |
Sixth-form colleges are classified as private sector institutions and already benefit from the freedoms that academies enjoy. For this reason, the Department for Education has no plans to publish guidance for sixth-form colleges that wish to convert to become 16 to 19 academies.
Appointments to the European Commission civil service are an internal matter for the Commission.
Eradicating extreme poverty is central to DFID’s mission and the Sustainable Development Goals. Oxfam say inequality affects the politics around growth. Our economic development strategy takes account of this by supporting inclusive growth and tackling inequality by creating opportunities, widening access to them (including through education and health), economically empowering women and leaving no-one behind.
To attend the Civil Nuclear Showcase 2017, UK-based companies were charged £234 including VAT to attend, £144 including VAT for those who made use of the ‘early bird’ rate. Income from attendance fees was £19,908 and from sponsorship £21,000, giving a net cost for the event of £106,749. This is expected to fall farther once various expected reimbursements are taken into account.
The assessment of the force majeure claim has been undertaken by permanent members of staff within the Department.
All Civil Servants are bound by the Civil Service Code and the four core values of impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity. The same process has been applied to Govia Thameslink Railway’s claim as that applied to claims from other operators and the outcome of the assessment will be shared in due course.
Govia Thameslink Railway have provided us with a range of confidential information in support of their force majeure claim. This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is ongoing.
The Department’s franchising system operates to the highest standards of public procurement and includes numerous checks and balances to ensure no impropriety. Decisions on the award of franchises are taken by the Department, not by any individual official, and follow a comprehensive process to ensure a fair and open competition. Each franchise award is subject to thorough and independent audit.
The scale of the industrial action on Southern has caused significant disruption to passengers, which is reflected in the force majeure claim by Govia Thameslink Railway. The Department analyses claims and must be satisfied that force majeure is appropriate. This is a complex claim to analyse and the process is ongoing.
Whether GTR meets performance benchmarks will be affected by the outcome of the force majeure claim. If the force majeure claim is not agreed, or agreed in part only, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate remedial action.
The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 standards apply to non-mainline operations (such as trams, light rail and metro systems). Accessibility standards for trains operated on the mainline are either the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 or the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) (under the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011).
Thameslink is in the process of commissioning and operating 1140 brand new Class 700 vehicles, which are PRM-TSI compliant. The following units are built to the standards mandated in the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998:
Class 171 (6 x4 car units plus 10 x 2 car units), Class 377/1 (64 x 4 car units), Class 377/2 (15 x 4 car units), Class 377/3 (28 x 3 car units), 377/4 (75 x 4 car units), class 377/5 (23 x 4 car units).
The Department has not provided the information requested in Question 55011 to the Guardian.
The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.
The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.
Govia Thameslink Railway’s (GTR) claim for force majeure relates to official and unofficial action by Southern train crew. This includes unofficial action for all days throughout the claim period. On days where there has been a notified strike, GTR’s claim also includes a claim for official action. Due to the unprecedented scale of disruption, the rail industry systems that capture disruption data are unable to differentiate between the two. Any such difference is likely to be immaterial to the passenger affected by this damaging and unwarranted action.
I am not aware of any statistical evidence having been submitted to the Department by train operators about delays or cancellations so caused.
The Remedial Plan includes benchmarks covering all cancellations that Govia Thameslink Railway are responsible for. The benchmark is not disaggregated by specific reasons or rolling stock types.
Since May 2015, 4 events across 3 train operating companies have had force majeure claims agreed in respect of industrial disputes on the railway.
As this is a management contract, officials have regular meetings with Govia Thameslink Railway. All levels of official can and do attend, from the Director General for Rail Group and the Managing Director for Passengers Services down.
Govia Thameslink Railway provided the Department with the figure that was given to the Chair of the Transport Committee. The force majeure claim has no impact on such calculations.
The Department has not issued general guidance to franchised train operating companies, as the force majeure provisions are defined as part of franchise agreements, which form the contract between the Department for Transport and train operating companies for the provision of franchised rail passenger services.
Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.
Train operators report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock. This information is not segregated by type of operation.
Govia Thameslink Railway have delivered the commitments detailed in the Remedial Plan to date, including exceeding the key requirement to maintain a minimum number of drivers. The other requirements which are due to be delivered at a later stage will be kept under review by the Department.
The Department does not hold information for the number of delays or cancellations caused by faulty rolling stock.
It is apparent that as the industrial dispute on Southern has continued, staff sickness levels have risen. Both publicly and in correspondence with hon. Members, we have consistently called for the union to stop all industrial action - which is not about jobs or safety - and which is doing nothing but hurting passengers, not least when Driver Only Operation is already in operation on the network.
Information about the two individuals that reported minor perceived conflicts of interest is as follows:
Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.
This information is not held in the form requested, and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
The Department has made no such assessment; it is an operational matter for franchised train operators to ensure that their traincrew planning and management is sufficiently effective to provide the required service to passengers and to meet their franchise obligations.
Govia Thameslink Railway has given a commitment to its staff and the RMT union that trains affected by the conductor changes will only leave a station without an on board supervisor on very rare occasions. So, for example, in times of disruption (or when there is short-notice sickness) if a driver but no on board supervisor is available, to avoid delaying passengers unnecessarily, a train will run rather than be cancelled. During times of disruption an on board supervisor may be able to join the train later in the journey.
GTR exceeded the breach levels for cancellations last year and were required to agree a Remedial Plan with the Department. The main focus of the Remedial Plan was the recruitment and training of sufficient drivers to operate their services, including training requirements. To date, GTR have fulfilled their contractual obligations in respect of driver numbers.
Since April, there has been significant disruption on Southern services as a result of industrial action by conductors as well as conductor and driver absences. The information on the shortage of Southern train crew has been provided to the Department as part of GTR’s claim for force majeure; this claim is currently being assessed.
No simple answer can be provided to this question, as the time taken under either mode is dependent on too many variables, including class of train (there are over 60 classes of rolling stock in use on the UK rail network) and station operating conditions.
The Department is currently assessing the Force Majeure claim received by Govia Thameslink Railway in relation to industrial action. This is an ongoing process and it would not be appropriate to outline the results until the analysis is completed.
The primary source for all industry information about train performance is Train Running Under System TOPS (TRUST) operated by Network Rail. This includes data which is subsequently supplied to the Department by train operators. However, train operators use the TRUST data in their own systems, and have access to additional information which may mean there are minor differences between the raw data from TRUST and the data provided to the Department by operators.
The Department’s team assessing the claim includes resources with specialist knowledge of the industry operations and systems. Additionally, the force majeure guidance mandates that operators provide clear evidence that disruption was as a result of the event in question. The overall assessment is being peer-reviewed internally to provide consistency with industry guidance and any precedents from previous claims. This assessment approach follows previous Department for Transport practice when dealing with force majeure claims.
No consultants have been used to assist the Department’s assessment of the claims for force majeure.
Yes. The data providing the number of cancellations is derived from the industry system which captures train running data across the industry.
The combined Cancellations and Serious Lateness (CaSL) measure reported by the Office of Rail and Road covers disruption caused across the whole industry, including incidents caused by Network Rail and other train or freight operators. There are separate benchmarks under the franchise agreement and the remedial plan covers cancellations and delays to passengers caused by Govia Thameslink Railway which incentivise the operator to reduce both. This obviates the possibility of an operator playing one measure off against another.
Govia Thameslink Railway’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group. There are no separate benchmarks for Southern or the southern section of the franchise.
Ministers meet regularly with representatives of Govia Thameslink Railway. Details of Ministerial meetings are published in the Department’s Quarterly Transparency Returns, which are made publicly available on GOV.UK:
All individuals engaged by the Department in assessing the bids, awarding the contract and overseeing the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise signed a franchise specific conflict of interest and confidentiality form; or were covered by a memorandum of understanding between their employer and the Department; or were covered by a contractual provision or professional duty to report conflict of interests. Two individuals reported minor perceived conflicts of interests, that the Department reviewed and was comfortable with. There was a conflict of interest relating to the Department’s Technical Advisor, Atkins and one of the losing bidders. The Department sought legal advice about managing this matter and mitigations were put in place.
Govia Thameslink Railway have submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. At present we cannot provide this information as we are currently finishing our assessment of the claim for the first three railway periods since the action started.
The Department monitors the effective delivery of train services by operators against the obligations in their franchise agreements, including those in relation to delays and cancellations. However, how operators plan to meet those obligations is an operational matter for them, and the Department does not specifically assess their plans for ensuring the availability of traincrew. I would note however that Driver Controlled Operation removes the frustration of trains being delayed or cancelled as a result of no guard being available because, for example, they have been delayed on another service.
GTR’s performance is assessed across the whole franchise. If found in breach or default, it would be at the Secretary of State’s discretion to make a decision on next steps, according to provisions in the franchise agreement.
GTR’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group – we do not have that information to that level of disaggregation.
GTR’s benchmarks are based on the entire franchise, not each component business group – we do not have that information to that level of disaggregation.
The performance benchmarks are calculated as a percentage on a moving annual average basis. This is to ensure that an operator’s performance is measured over the long term and not impacted by short term issues. Therefore a comparison of the number of cancellations for each period against a percentage-based annual benchmark is misleading.
We have attached the latest position against the Remedial Plan benchmarks in the table below. Cancellations are in excess of default levels. GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.
Railway period | Period dates | Actual (%) | Default (%) |
2015/16_P10 | 13 Dec to 09 Jan 2016 | 1.80 | 2.71 |
2015/16_P11 | 10 Jan to 06 Feb 2016 | 1.84 | 2.70 |
2015/16_P12 | 07 Feb to 05 Mar 2016 | 1.91 | 2.71 |
2015/16_P13 | 06 Mar to 31 Mar 2016 | 1.95 | 2.71 |
2016/17_P01 | 01 Apr to 30 Apr 2016 | 1.98 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P02 | 01 May to 28 May 2016 | 2.21 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P03 | 29 May to 25 Jun 2016 | 2.84 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P04 | 26 Jun to 23 Jul 2016 | 3.44 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P05 | 24 Jul to 20 Aug 2016 | 4.15 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P06 | 21 Aug to 17 Sep 2016 | 4.75 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P07 | 18 Sep to 15 Oct 2016 | 5.19 | 2.69 |
The performance benchmarks are calculated as a percentage on a moving annual average basis. This is to ensure that an operator’s performance is measured over the long term and not impacted by short term issues. Therefore a comparison of the number of cancellations for each period against a percentage-based annual benchmark is misleading.
We have attached the latest position against the Remedial Plan benchmarks in the table below. Cancellations are in excess of default levels. GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.
Railway period | Period dates | Actual (%) | Default (%) |
2015/16_P10 | 13 Dec to 09 Jan 2016 | 1.80 | 2.71 |
2015/16_P11 | 10 Jan to 06 Feb 2016 | 1.84 | 2.70 |
2015/16_P12 | 07 Feb to 05 Mar 2016 | 1.91 | 2.71 |
2015/16_P13 | 06 Mar to 31 Mar 2016 | 1.95 | 2.71 |
2016/17_P01 | 01 Apr to 30 Apr 2016 | 1.98 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P02 | 01 May to 28 May 2016 | 2.21 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P03 | 29 May to 25 Jun 2016 | 2.84 | 2.73 |
2016/17_P04 | 26 Jun to 23 Jul 2016 | 3.44 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P05 | 24 Jul to 20 Aug 2016 | 4.15 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P06 | 21 Aug to 17 Sep 2016 | 4.75 | 2.75 |
2016/17_P07 | 18 Sep to 15 Oct 2016 | 5.19 | 2.69 |
Due to the unprecedented scale of disruption to passengers, that has been caused by the unwarranted union action, Govia Thameslink Railway have been unable to separate the claims of force majeure in this way, and therefore have made a single force majeure claim in respect of official and unofficial industrial action.
The Department does not specify to GTR how long every train must be and therefore does not hold this information. It is for each operator to use all reasonable endeavours to operate with sufficient capacity to meet passenger requirements. The Department incorporates a Peak Short Formation benchmark within GTR’s financial incentive regime, which measures the capacity delivered when the network is busiest.
We have attached the latest position against the contractual benchmarks in the table below. Whilst Peak Short formations appear to be in excess of default levels, GTR has submitted a force majeure claim for official and unofficial industrial action undertaken by drivers and conductors on Southern services. The outcome of our assessment of their force majeure claim will determine GTR's performance level.
Railway period | Period dates | Actual (%) | Default (%) |
2015/16_P08 | 18 Oct to 14 Nov 2015 | 0.77 | 1.11 |
2015/16_P09 | 15 Nov to 12 Dec 2015 | 0.77 | 1.18 |
2015/16_P10 | 13 Dec to 09 Jan 2016 | 0.82 | 1.28 |
2015/16_P11 | 10 Jan to 06 Feb 2016 | 0.90 | 1.34 |
2015/16_P12 | 07 Feb to 05 Mar 2016 | 1.00 | 1.39 |
2015/16_P13 | 06 Mar to 31 Mar 2016 | 1.05 | 1.44 |
2016/17_P01 | 01 Apr to 30 Apr 2016 | 1.08 | 1.47 |
2016/17_P02 | 01 May to 28 May 2016 | 1.13 | 1.51 |
2016/17_P03 | 29 May to 25 Jun 2016 | 1.41 | 1.55 |
2016/17_P04 | 26 Jun to 23 Jul 2016 | 1.69 | 1.59 |
2016/17_P05 | 24 Jul to 20 Aug 2016 | 1.77 | 1.58 |
2016/17_P06 | 21 Aug to 17 Sep 2016 | 1.92 | 1.58 |
2016/17_P07 | 18 Sep to 15 Oct 2016 | 1.99 | 1.58 |
The Department does not hold information on why a peak train has been short formed, except when it is subject to a force majeure or service recovery claim. In such instances, an operator needs to submit sufficient evidence of mitigations to the department. This is the case in respect of Govia Thameslink Railway’s current force majeure claim.
The Department has made no quantified assessment of these effects, as the rail industry reporting available to the Department on delays caused by train crew does not differentiate between the potential reasons behind those delays. However the Department is aware from discussions with train operators that the non-availability of conductors and guards can be a significant contributor to such delays.
The current Managing Director of Passenger Services became a directly employed member of staff at the Department for Transport on 1st November 2014.
Open access track access applications are a matter for the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). They are not specifically referred to the Department.
The ORR publishes a list of all historic and pending decisions it has made on track access applications on its website:
The Department has arrangements in place to manage any actual or perceived conflicts of interest which may arise in relation to its senior members of staff. This process does not include routine assessments of the kind referred to.
For planned timetable changes, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) is required to consult stakeholders before introducing them. However, when – as is the case for the revised timetable which came into effect on Southern and Gatwick Express services on 11 July a revised timetable has been introduced to mitigate the impact of official and unofficial industrial action – no consultation is required. GTR has an overriding obligation to act in the overall interests of passengers and to take all reasonable measures to avoid or reduce the impact of any disruption.
The successful bidder for the East Anglia franchise will help us realise our ambitious plans for East Anglia’s rail network. We have been clear that as a minimum they must provide a modern service with state of the art trains, and also introduce at least two 90-minute services each way between London and Norwich. In addition they must invest heavily in improving stations.
We continue to consider the bids and will announce the new operator in due course.
Emergency timetables are introduced by the rail industry in reaction to specific circumstances as they are responsible for operating the railway and do not need the prior approval of the Secretary of State. GTR has introduced a revised timetable which seeks to use the resources that are likely to be available in order to provide a service that passengers can rely on. It is for the operator, in conjunction with Network Rail, to manage the timetable effectively.
The Department did not design either the Remedial Plan, or the revised timetable being introduced on 11 July. Emergency timetables are introduced by the rail industry in reaction to specific circumstances as they are responsible for operating the railway and do not need the prior approval of the Secretary of State.
Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .
The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.
Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .
The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.
Under the Franchise Agreement, where GTR can provide the evidence that cancellations are due to official or unofficial industrial action, they can claim Force Majeure, which they have done. The Govia Thameslink Railway Franchise Agreement in Schedule 7.1 sets out the performance benchmarks and financial regime that is in place in relation to cancellations. A copy of the Franchise Agreement can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/govia-thameslink .
The department is monitoring the position on a regular basis.
It is not for the Department to approve changes to the timetable. GTR has informed us of their intention to change the timetable in order to provide a more reliable timetable for passengers.
We monitor GTR’s performance and we have ongoing discussions with them over the delivery of their train services.
Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. However, the Department may consider on a case-by-case basis whether, exceptionally, to invite proposals involving driver-only or driver-controlled operation when it holds competitions for future franchises.
No assessment has been made of the potential effect on passenger revenues of an extension of driver-only operation on services operated by Govia Thameslink Railway.
Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. Therefore, no such estimate has been made.
The safety of passengers and rail users is paramount on the railway and the Department for Transport would never do anything to put passengers at risk.
Driver-only operation is already in safe use on almost a third of rail services in Great Britain and has been for up to 30 years and we think that it can help to improve the service to passengers. By giving responsibility to the driver to operate the doors, the other staff on board the train could provide a better face-to-face service for passengers. Whilst we regulate Ticket Office opening times through the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement station staffing levels are a matter for operators, as we believe that railway operators themselves are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of their passengers. However, it is important that those who need assistance to travel can rely on railway staff to provide this. Each operator is required to participate in the Passenger Assist system which allows disabled passengers to book staff assistance when they require it.
We recognise that passengers can feel very strongly about station staffing hours and we expect all operators to take on board the views of stakeholders before taking any proposal to change such hours forward.
Representatives from Govia Thameslink Railway briefed officials at the Department for Transport on their plans to carry out a consultation on proposals to change ticket office opening hours at some stations.
Govia Thameslink Railway have made officials aware of the intention to engage with staff and their representatives regarding future plans for Driver Only Operation on some services.
The potential cost savings from an extension of driver-only operation were included in Govia Thameslink Railway’s formal bid for the franchise. The Department assessed all bids for the franchise against the evaluation criteria in the Invitation to Tender which can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245041/invitation-to-tender.pdf.
The safety of passengers and rail users is paramount on the railway and the Department for Transport would never do anything to put passengers at risk.
This system has already been in safe use on almost a third of rail services in Great Britain for up to 30 years and can help to improve the service to passengers. Giving responsibility to the driver to operate the doors can improve operational performance and can enable other staff on board the train to provide a better face-to-face service for passengers. Staffing levels are generally a matter for railway operators, as we believe that they are best placed to determine how to meet the needs of all passengers. However, it is important that those who need assistance to travel can rely on railway staff to provide this. Each operator is required to participate in the Passenger Assist system which allows disabled passengers to book staff assistance when they require it.
Neither the Department for Transport nor the Office of Rail and Road have held any specific discussions with Govia Thameslink Railway on changes to criteria for driver-only operation.
The Department is actively looking at a range of commercial and technical options to ensure passenger benefits are delivered on time. We have a commercially confidential estimate however no decisions have been taken on IEP conversion.
The only railway infrastructure in Britain that can accommodate a rail freight service carrying lorry trailers is HS1 between the Channel Tunnel and Barking, which can carry the standard international 4 metres semi-trailer. It represents 0.75% per cent of Britain’s rail route mileage.
The 80% of the UK domestic semi-trailer fleet with a height of 4.25 metres or greater cannot be accommodated on trains in Britain. However, container goods can be accepted across the freight network, which carries some 1 million containers – 30% of total container freight in the UK - a year.
Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) expenditure for rail freight moved in each year since the scheme started in April 2010, is shown in the table below.
| 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 |
Total MSRS expenditure (including inland waterway) | £19,373,617 | £16,489,457 | £16,869,638 | £16,752,301 | £17,792,310 |
MSRS rail expenditure | £19,373,617 | £16,439,868 | £16,752,664 | £16,622,583 | £17,691,643 |
Rail as proportion of MSRS expenditure | 100% | 99.70% | 99.30% | 99.23% | 99.43% |
The MSRS scheme also covers inland waterways but not maritime freight. Mode shift support for coastal and short sea shipping is provided though a separate scheme, Waterborne Freight Grant, for which expenditure is shown in the table below.
| 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 |
Waterborne Freight Grant | £240,594 | £81,770 | £416,349 | £557,878 | £283,741 |
Operation of the schemes was assessed in a research study carried out by Ove Arup and Partners Ltd. A summary report entitled "a Review of Revenue Support Freight Grant Schemes" was published on the gov.uk site in May 2014.
An evaluation of the Waterborne Freight Grant scheme was also made in October 2014 by the Department and the Scottish Government as part of the State Aid renewal application process.
The frequency and volume of freight moved between any origin and destination is a commercial matter for the rail freight operators and their customers. The Department’s policy is to encourage the use of rail for freight transport where it is practical, economic and environmentally sustainable to do so, and to ensure that rail freight has fair and transparent access to the rail network, regardless of the route in question.
Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.
Financial Support for rail flows was provided under the Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (Intermodal) in 2009/10 and the Mode Shift Revenue Support (Intermodal) scheme in subsequent years.
The following table is an estimate of the funding awarded, including contributions from the Welsh Government, where appropriate.
Year | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 |
Tilbury | £1,230,000 | £1,468,000 | £1,638,000 | £1,740,000 | £1,415,000 | £1,196,000 |
London Gateway | £ - | £ - | £ - | £ - | £34,000 | £603,000 |
As funding is awarded on a zone to zone basis, it is not possible to give an exact assessment of funding for freight flows from individual ports.
There were no awards for rail freight operations during this period at either Tilbury or London Gateway through the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme, which was closed in England in 2011.
Financial Support for rail flows was provided under the Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (Intermodal) in 2009/10 and the Mode Shift Revenue Support (Intermodal) scheme in subsequent years.
The following table is an estimate of the funding awarded, including contributions from the Welsh Government, where appropriate.
Year | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 |
Tilbury | £1,230,000 | £1,468,000 | £1,638,000 | £1,740,000 | £1,415,000 | £1,196,000 |
London Gateway | £ - | £ - | £ - | £ - | £34,000 | £603,000 |
As funding is awarded on a zone to zone basis, it is not possible to give an exact assessment of funding for freight flows from individual ports.
There were no awards for rail freight operations during this period at either Tilbury or London Gateway through the Freight Facilities Grant Scheme, which was closed in England in 2011.
As part of our ongoing management of passenger rail franchises, train operators report on their financial performance – including revenue, cost and profit – on a regular basis.
This is a commercial matter for the logistics sector. I expect that workers at these private sector ports and in the private rail freight operating companies will deal with rail freight activity as in the normal course of business. I do not intend to undertake any special assessment.
The department does not hold estimates of future freight container activity for individual ports, nor estimates of the mode used for onward journeys.
Freightliner is a private enterprise; its acquisition by Genesee and Wyoming is a commercial matter for the company.
There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. I have not had any discussions with any of the bodies in question about rail freight operations between the two ports, as this is a commercial matter for the freight operators and their customers.
There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. I have not had any discussions with any of the bodies in question about rail freight operations between the two ports, as this is a commercial matter for the freight operators and their customers.
Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.
There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two. There is no requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment on the existing rail infrastructure used by the services between the two ports.
The Department continues to support the shift of freight from road to water and rail through the Mode Shift Revenue Support and Waterborne Freight Grant schemes. The State aid clearances for these schemes have been renewed to enable grants to continue to be offered in Great Britain until March 2020.
The Department recently published details of awards of up to £20.6m for 2015/16. These include services beginning and/or ending in South East England or East England and also Scottish and Welsh cross border freight services for which Scottish Government and Welsh Government co-funding is sought.
The Department made no specific assessment of these commercial, operational decisions.
The impact on local road and rail network will have been assessed as part of the planning process. The London Gateway planning consents require various inland infrastructure works to reflect the scope of the development and the potential levels of business and traffic. This includes works on the A13, Junction 30 of M25, and rail freight links that are to be undertaken when specified threshold levels of port development, and for the associated logistics park, are reached.
It is not necessarily the case that the transfer of one contract from Tilbury to London Gateway will affect the overall balance of containers currently sent by rail and road. Like Tilbury, London Gateway is served by rail as well as road. The DfT is supporting financially some rail freight flows from Tilbury and London Gateway in recognition of non-commercialised benefits, such as for the environment, from using rail rather than road for freight.
There is no direct rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury, although up to two services a day in each direction operate between the two.
Network Rail’s Freight Market Study, published in 2013, forecasts significant growth in the intermodal market, which is likely to benefit each of Felixstowe, London Gateway and Tilbury ports; however, the choice of port for freight deliveries is a commercial matter for the shipping companies.
On that basis, I have no current plans to meet trades unions to discuss this issue.
The Department made no specific assessment of these commercial, operational decisions.
The impact on local road and rail network will have been assessed as part of the planning process. The London Gateway planning consents require various inland infrastructure works to reflect the scope of the development and the potential levels of business and traffic. This includes works on the A13, Junction 30 of M25, and rail freight links that are to be undertaken when specified threshold levels of port development, and for the associated logistics park, are reached.
It is not necessarily the case that the transfer of one contract from Tilbury to London Gateway will affect the overall balance of containers currently sent by rail and road. Like Tilbury, London Gateway is served by rail as well as road. The DfT is supporting financially some rail freight flows from Tilbury and London Gateway in recognition of non-commercialised benefits, such as for the environment, from using rail rather than road for freight.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer I gave my Hon Friend, the Hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) on 4 March 2015, UIN 225506.
Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.
Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.
Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.
Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.
Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.
Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.
Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.
Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.
Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.
Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.
Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.
Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.
Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.
Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.
Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.
Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.
Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.
Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.
Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.
Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.
Historically Network Rail was classified to the private sector and borrowed from the markets. Government provided a financial indemnity in return for a fee from Network Rail to Government. The fee was set by the Office of the Rail Regulator to reflect the market cost of the indemnity. The financial indemnity allowed Network Rail to borrow using the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, whilst leaving it the normal private sector freedom to manage its own treasury policy.
Following the Office of National Statistic’s announcement that Network Rail would be classified to the public sector from 1 September 2014, Network Rail’s borrowing and liquidity is being managed as part of central Exchequer processes.
Department for Transport (DfT) is lending to Network Rail on terms consistent with the Regulator’s expectations of Network Rail’s cost of debt over control period 5. That is, the cost to Network Rail is intended to be broadly unchanged.
Previously Network Rail paid a fee to Government for the financial indemnity and interest to the market, which could be thought of as the underlying government benchmark rate (i.e. gilts) plus a small premium. Network Rail now pays the equivalent amount to Government. In control period 5 (CP5: 2014-2019) we estimate a saving to the taxpayer of c.£95m to £190m on debt issuance of £28.5bn (now effectively gilt issuance), assuming that the premium to gilts would have been between 0.2% and 0.4%.
Network Rail estimates that the average premium paid over Gilts across control period 3 (CP3) and control period 4 (CP4) was 0.15% to 0.25%. Given the mix of funding and number of instruments issued over time we have not attempted to estimate the theoretical saving to taxpayers if Network Rail had borrowed from Government in CP3 and CP4 and the premium had been retained by the taxpayer. It is also not possible to quantify the potential impact on gilt rates had additional debt been source by the exchequer.
Since 2007 the Government has invested around £500 million specifically in improvements to rail freight infrastructure, and we have committed a further £200 million over the next five years. The amount of freight moved on our railways has almost doubled since 1994.
The only railway infrastructure in Britain that can accommodate lorry trailers on trains is HS1 between the Channel Tunnel and Barking, which can carry the standard international 4 metre semi-trailer. It represents 0.75% per cent of Britain's rail route mileage.
Around 80% of the UK domestic semi-trailer fleet has a height of 4.25 metres or greater. These cannot be accommodated on trains in Britain.
The Government confirmed its support for the principle of further decentralisation of rail franchises in its July 2013 response to the Brown Review of rail franchising. Two propositions from English regions are currently being developed (West Midland Rail) or taken forward (with the Rail North consortium). We are examining the scope for further devolution of rail responsibilities in Wales. The Scottish Ministers already have substantial executive devolved powers in relation to the railways in Scotland.
Staffing levels and the roles to which staff are allocated are matters for the train operator, as long as they continue to deliver the services that meet the requirements of the Franchise Agreement.
Train operating companies do sometimes inform us of staff restructuring; for example as was explained in the answer to the hon. member for Coventry South on 17 June 2014 [Official Report, column 530W].
The Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) in the north of England are represented in discussions on this matter through the Rail North consortium of 30 local authorities. The Secretary of State and Rail North Leaders agreed the principles of an initial partnership for the procurement and management of the next Trans Pennine Express and Northern franchises at a meeting on 24 January. Officials – including a number from the PTEs - are working closely together on its implementation. Details of the partnership can be found at
http://www.railnorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Developing-the-Rail-North-Partnership.pdf.
The Department is in regular discussion with West Midlands Rail (WMR), a consortium of local authorities led by Centro, on their development of a proposition for devolution of local rail services in the West Midlands. The proposition is expected to be submitted to the Department by the end of July. WMR is meeting the Secretary of State early in July to discuss its proposals.
We have received no recent representations from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system.
The Department for Transport have received no recent representations from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system, nor regarding the future sharing of ticket revenue from passenger journeys from and to stations on the London Midland line.
Staffing levels are a matter for the train operator, as long as they continue to deliver services that meet the requirements of the Franchise Agreement. The 7-period extension announced on 9 June was a priced option in the current Franchise Agreement.
Any existing ticket revenue sharing arrangements continue through the extension. Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, no timetable for formal negotiations is yet in place, and formal negotiations are yet to take place.
On 9 June we signed the 7-period extension to the London Midland contract as permitted in the franchise agreement. This extends the current franchise until April 2016. Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, no timetable for formal negotiations is yet in place. As announced by the Secretary of State, the new franchising programme will provide a more sustainable schedule for rail franchising and the planned competition for the West Midland franchise should see the successful operator providing services from June 2017.
Although preliminary negotiations have taken place with regard to a Direct Award to run services from April 2016, formal negotiations are yet to take place.
However, we do not anticipate that the operator will be entitled to any revenue support throughout the period of the Direct Award.
The Government is committed to the principle of devolving responsibility for a range of its activities to the most appropriate level of local government, where it is sensible to do so.
A proposition is being drafted by West Midlands Rail body (WMR) which is expected to be received by the end of July. WMR is meeting with Secretary of State early in July to discuss devolution.
Following receipt of the proposition, the Secretary of State will decide whether to agree to the proposition in principle. If this is the case, detailed negotiations on the financial and contractual elements will then follow.
In the 2015 funding settlement, the Government agreed with the BBC that responsibility for the concession will transfer to the BBC in June 2020.
The government and the BBC agreed this is a fair deal for the BBC - in return we closed the iPlayer loophole and committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation. And to help with financial planning, we agreed to provide phased transitional funding over 2 years to gradually introduce the cost to the BBC.
This reform was subject to public discussion and debated extensively during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017 through Parliament.
On 10 June 2019, the BBC announced that the current scheme will end. From 1 June 2020, a free TV licence will only be available to a household with someone aged over 75 who receives Pension Credit.
The table below provides estimates of the costs for 2017/18 of providing free TV licences to people aged 75 and over in the geographical areas requested, in nominal prices. The figures for 2018/19 will be available in September.
| Expenditure (£m) (Nominal) |
| 2017-18 |
(a) Luton North constituency | £0.90 |
(b) Luton local authority area | £1.55 |
Reforms to the State Pension were recommended by the Pensions Commission in 2005, which was set up under the then Labour Government. These recommendations were taken forward in the design of the new State Pension by the coalition Government.
Since 2014, the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out a comprehensive communication campaign to bring the new State Pension to people’s attention with advertisements in newspapers, on social media and on radio stations across the country as well as working through Stakeholders to raise public awareness of the changes. There is also a significant package of on-line information about the State Pension at www.gov.uk.
Our online service, Check your State Pension (CySP), is key in supporting the communication campaign. This service provides a State Pension forecast (based on the individual’s current National Insurance record and an assumption that future years count towards their State Pension), and the earliest date the individual can get their State Pension. Users can look at their National Insurance record, where they will also find out how many qualifying years they have and any gaps in their contributions. Since February 2016, over 10 million State Pension forecasts have now been viewed online, helping millions of people to plan for their retirement. Those who are unable to use the online CySP service can request to get a State Pension forecast posted to them.
The CySP service also gives personalised information on whether the payment of (Class 3) voluntary National Insurance Contributions (vNICs) may improve their forecast. Whether or not an individual can improve their State Pension position by making vNICs will depend upon their own particular circumstances. It is entirely a decision for the individual to make but it may not always be beneficial. A person normally has six years in which to pay vNICs for a given tax year.
Anyone considering making vNICs payments should firstly check their State Pension using the CySP service on www.gov.uk. Where someone pays Class 3 vNICs and the payment does not result in an increase their State Pension, they can request a refund from HMRC.
People with no National Insurance record before the introduction of the new State
Pension on 6 April 2016 will need 35 qualifying years to get the full amount of new State Pension, when they reach State Pension age.
For people with an existing National Insurance record before this date, transitional arrangements apply and their existing National Insurance (NI) record to 6 April 2016 is taken into account. (It is therefore not the case that 35 years of National Insurance will result in the full rate of the new State Pension for these people; in these cases there is usually not a direct relationship between the number of years of National Insurance contributions and the amount of State Pension someone receives.)
People who qualify will receive at least as much from the new State Pension as they would have done from the old system, based on their NI record to 6 April 2018;
Many people will be able to build a higher State Pension amount than they previously could have done by adding further qualifying years until they either reach the full rate of new State Pension, or their State Pension age whichever comes first
The requested information relating to the payment of voluntary Class 3 National Insurance contributions is not readily available.
People with no National Insurance record before the introduction of the new State Pension on 6 April 2016 will need 35 qualifying years to get the full amount of new State Pension, when they reach State Pension age.
For people with an existing National Insurance record before this date, transitional arrangements apply and their existing National Insurance (NI) record to 6 April 2016 is taken into account. (It is therefore not the case that 35 years of National Insurance will result in the full rate of the new State Pension for these people; in these cases there is usually not a direct relationship between the number of years of National Insurance contributions and the amount of State Pension someone receives.)
People who qualify will receive at least as much from the new State Pension as they would have done from the old system, based on their NI record to 6 April 2018;
Many people will be able to build a higher State Pension amount than they previously could have done by adding further qualifying years until they either reach the full rate of new State Pension, or their State Pension age whichever comes first
Reforms to the State Pension were recommended by the Pensions Commission in 2005, which was set up under the then Labour Government. These recommendations were taken forward in the design of the new State Pension by the coalition Government.
Since 2014, the Department for Work and Pensions has carried out a comprehensive communication campaign to bring the new State Pension to people’s attention with advertisements in newspapers, on social media and on radio stations across the country as well as working through Stakeholders to raise public awareness of the changes. There is also a significant package of on-line information about the State Pension at www.gov.uk.
Our online service, Check your State Pension (CySP), is key in supporting the communication campaign. This service provides a State Pension forecast (based on the individual’s current National Insurance record and an assumption that future years count towards their State Pension), and the earliest date the individual can get their State Pension. Users can look at their National Insurance record, where they will also find out how many qualifying years they have and any gaps in their contributions. Since February 2016, over 10 million State Pension forecasts have now been viewed online, helping millions of people to plan for their retirement. Those who are unable to use the online CySP service can request to get a State Pension forecast posted to them.
The CySP service also gives personalised information on whether the payment of (Class 3) voluntary National Insurance Contributions (vNICs) may improve their forecast. Whether or not an individual can improve their State Pension position by making vNICs will depend upon their own particular circumstances. It is entirely a decision for the individual to make but it may not always be beneficial. A person normally has six years in which to pay vNICs for a given tax year.
Anyone considering making vNICs payments should firstly check their State Pension using the CySP service on www.gov.uk. Where someone pays Class 3 vNICs and the payment does not result in an increase their State Pension, they can request a refund from HMRC.
People with no National Insurance record before the introduction of the new State
Pension on 6 April 2016 will need 35 qualifying years to get the full amount of new State Pension, when they reach State Pension age.
For people with an existing National Insurance record before this date, transitional arrangements apply and their existing National Insurance (NI) record to 6 April 2016 is taken into account. (It is therefore not the case that 35 years of National Insurance will result in the full rate of the new State Pension for these people; in these cases there is usually not a direct relationship between the number of years of National Insurance contributions and the amount of State Pension someone receives.)
People who qualify will receive at least as much from the new State Pension as they would have done from the old system, based on their NI record to 6 April 2018;
Many people will be able to build a higher State Pension amount than they previously could have done by adding further qualifying years until they either reach the full rate of new State Pension, or their State Pension age whichever comes first
Our Green Paper: Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Schemes looked at a number of potential measures to further protect DB schemes – including introducing a system for compulsory clearance by the Regulator for certain corporate transactions and a requirement for employers to consult with trustees before paying dividends where the scheme is underfunded.
We are currently analysing the feedback received and will publish a White Paper in winter. Any future changes to legislation need to be considered carefully against the need to ensure appropriate protections for members, the impact on business and the wider economy.
The new State Pension has been introduced for people reaching their State Pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards; this question asks what the difference would be for a woman reaching State Pension age either side of its introduction.
In this case a woman born on 5 April 1953 with a 35 year contracted-in National Insurance record would receive £119.30 a week in basic State Pension plus an amount of additional State Pension. We are unable to quantify the amount of additional State Pension she would receive as it would be related to her past earnings.
For the woman born on 6 April 1953, the Starting Amount calculation for the new State Pension means that she would receive at least as much under the new State Pension as she would have done under the previous system. It is likely that her Starting Amount would be based on the old State Pension system rules as she has never been contracted-out. So, as for the woman born on 5 April 1953, this would be the full basic State Pension (£119.30 a week) plus an amount of additional State Pension which would have depended on her past earnings.
It is likely that the two women you have described would receive the same amount at the date of the award.
The Department has four contracts with Hewlett Packard Enterprise: Application Development and Application Maintenance & Support – these two contracts expired on 29/02/2016 and an extension has been agreed to 28/02/2018. Hosting – this contract runs till 23/02/2018. Desktop – this contract runs till 08/01/2017. DWP future contracting plans are commercially sensitive. The Department is progressing its strategy to deliver its technology requirements, and this includes both in-house services, and externally provided services sourced through procurement exercises using open competitions under the EU Procurement Directives and call-off competitions under Government Frameworks.
The Department anticipates a shift in the way in which citizens will engage with the Department - with greater digital interaction in the future. Digital Technology, Data and Security capabilities are a key enabler of this shift. The Department is progressing its strategy to deliver the underpinning technology requirements, and this includes both in-house services and externally provided services through procurement exercises using open competitions under the EU Procurement Directives and call-off competitions under Government Frameworks, such as GCloud and Crown Hosting.
The Department anticipates a shift in the way in which citizens will engage with the Department - with greater digital interaction in the future. Digital Technology, Data and Security capabilities are a key enabler of this shift. The department initiates on an ongoing basis a number of procurement exercises using open competitions under the EU Procurement Directives and call-off competitions under Government Frameworks.
The DWP Print service will transfer to Williams Lea on 31st March 2016. All staff currently working on Print within Hewlett Packard (HP) will transfer over on this date via TUPE unless they have decided to opt out and accept alternative positions within HP prior to the date of transfer. All staff have been informed and consultation is actively underway in line with legislative requirements.
In terms of contractual obligations, Williams Lea are obligated to transfer the service over by 31st March 2016. Williams Lea remain on track to meet their transfer date obligation and no service disruption is anticipated.
The Department has had no such discussions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is an independent body and develops its guidance based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence and in consultation with stakeholders. NICE is currently updating its clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis, with expected publication on 14 October 2020.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on 26 February 2018 to Question 128962.
Information is not available in the format requested, as we are unable to identify in Hospital Episode Statistics primary referrals from tertiary centres.
I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23 November 2016 to his Question 53645.
I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23 November 2016 to his Question 53645.
The Department is undertaking an Equality Impact Assessment of the DH 2020 change programme in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This will be published internally in 2017 when the outcomes of the current selection process are known.
The Answer to Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town of 1 April 2014 made clear that estimated changes in alcohol consumption are relative to the effects of the previous alcohol duty rates policy. Changes in consumption will be subject to a number of factors, of which changes in duty rates are one.
The Government's Alcohol Strategy aims to cut the number of people drinking at harmful levels.
In November 2012, the Home Office launched a consultation on five key areas with the aim of reducing alcohol-fuelled crime, anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related health harm.
The Government response, published in July 2013, provided an analysis of the responses and set out the next steps that the Government will take:
- Targeted national action, ending sales of the cheapest alcohol by introducing a ban on selling alcohol below the price of duty and VAT, and strengthening the ban on irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs.
- A challenge to industry to increase its efforts, building on what has already been achieved through the Public Health Responsibility Deal. This includes tackling high strength products; promoting alcohol responsibly in shops; improving education around drinking; and supporting targeted local action.
- Support local action on alcohol-related harm, identifying a number of high harm local alcohol action areas and take action with them to strengthen local partnerships; improve enforcement; and share good practice based on what works locally. The Minister for Crime Prevention announced the 20 successful areas on 13 February 2014.
Identifying a change in alcohol by volume (ABV) was the methodology agreed by the Responsibility Deal Monitoring Group as the best way to measure progress towards delivery of the Responsibility Deal pledge, made by alcohol producers and retailers, to remove 1 billion units of alcohol from the market by the end of 2015 principally through improving consumer choice of lower alcohol products.
The first interim monitoring report of progress, considered the extent to which the number of units of alcohol sold in the United Kingdom changed between 2011 and 2012 (a reduction of 1.3 billion units) and the portion of that change that can be attributed to changes in the average alcoholic strength of products (a reduction of 253 million units). When shifts between different categories of drink are controlled for, the average ABV decreased by 0.04 percentage points from 7.26% in 2011 to 7.22% in 2012. This generated the reduction of 253 million units of alcohol.
This takes into account a downward pressure from an overall reduction in the volume of product sold, a slight upward pressure from a shift in market share towards higher strength products (wine and spirits) and a downward pressure from an overall reduction in the strength of drinks within product categories.
The first interim monitoring report has been placed in the Library.
The Answer to Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town of 1 April 2014 made clear that estimated changes in alcohol consumption are relative to the effects of the previous alcohol duty rates policy. Changes in consumption will be subject to a number of factors, of which changes in duty rates are one.
The Government's Alcohol Strategy aims to cut the number of people drinking at harmful levels.
In November 2012, the Home Office launched a consultation on five key areas with the aim of reducing alcohol-fuelled crime, anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related health harm.
The Government response, published in July 2013, provided an analysis of the responses and set out the next steps that the Government will take:
- Targeted national action, ending sales of the cheapest alcohol by introducing a ban on selling alcohol below the price of duty and VAT, and strengthening the ban on irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs.
- A challenge to industry to increase its efforts, building on what has already been achieved through the Public Health Responsibility Deal. This includes tackling high strength products; promoting alcohol responsibly in shops; improving education around drinking; and supporting targeted local action.
- Support local action on alcohol-related harm, identifying a number of high harm local alcohol action areas and take action with them to strengthen local partnerships; improve enforcement; and share good practice based on what works locally. The Minister for Crime Prevention announced the 20 successful areas on 13 February 2014.
Provisional vaccine uptake data for England show that about 360,000 70 to 79 year olds received the shingles vaccine between 1 September 2013 and 30 April 2014. The actual number will be higher as about 20% of general practitioner (GP) practices are not able to automatically submit uptake information. If it is assumed that the non-reporting practices have similar uptake rates to those that have reported, then the estimated total number of people aged 70 to 79 years receiving the vaccine in the first eight months of the programme, would be around 450,000.
This is the first year of this immunisation programme and there is no formal target for the number to be vaccinated. Eligible patients aged 70 and 79 who have not yet received shingles vaccine during the 2013-14 programme will continue to be offered vaccination under the national programme until 31 August 2014. It is not possible to predict how many will take up the offer of vaccination in this period, but Public Health England expects vaccine uptake to continue to rise, and we would encourage those eligible individuals to contact their GP to arrange their vaccination if they have not already done so.
Further provisional cumulative coverage data will be published on a quarterly basis, with the final annual coverage data for the 2013-14 programme due to be published in autumn 2014.
The Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia was brought before the House for ratification on Thursday 27 June.
The Foreign Secretary has not discussed the case of Mr Ablyazov with the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan. We understand that he is not residing in the UK.
The Foreign Secretary has not discussed the case of Mr Ablyazov with the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan. Illicit finance is a global problem and we are committed to working with international partners, particularly through the EU, G7 and G20 to ensure we protect our prosperity and security. As the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on 14 March 2018, “We will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people - or their money - in our country”.
I refer to my answer of 20 July 2017 (PQ 5948). The UK is a strong supporter of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and peaceful uses of nuclear technology which are central to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Our role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action addressing the Iranian nuclear programme, in the UN Security Council to take action in response to North Korea's nuclear and missile programme, and more broadly our support for the International Atomic Energy Agency are all important contributions to promoting the effectiveness of the NPT.
We continue to work with partners across the international community to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and successful negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty in the Conference on Disarmament. There have been significant reductions in global warhead numbers since the late 1970s; the UK has reduced our nuclear forces by over half since that date.
The Government firmly believes that the best way to achieve a world without nuclear weapons is through gradual multilateral disarmament negotiated using a step by step approach and within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We will consider our approach to the 2018 international conference closer to the time.
We have been clear that we oppose sanctions and boycotts on Israel, and do not believe such steps would promote progress towards a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are satisfied that this position is consistent with our international obligations.
The National Infrastructure Strategy will be informed by the recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission’s first National Infrastructure Assessment and will set out the Government’s long-term vision for infrastructure across the whole of the UK, including action on meeting the UK’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.
The Department for Transport published its Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline earlier this month, which includes electrification schemes. In addition, Network Rail is developing a Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy which also serves to inform the Government’s decisions on electrification, alongside other technologies such as battery and hydrogen.
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) currently supports the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP). This is a continually evolving portfolio of the Government’s most complex and high risk projects, which monitors and analyses cost, schedule and benefits data on a quarterly basis. Furthermore, each year the IPA undertakes over 200 independent assurance reviews to examine the delivery of GMPP projects.
In April 2019, the Department for Transport and the IPA jointly published the ‘Lessons from transport for the sponsorship of major projects’ report, which identified 24 practical lessons, which will help improve how the Government delivers projects. These lessons will be applied to future projects across Government and used to improve the system over the long-term.
The Government considers all reports from relevant stakeholders, and considerable work is taking place across government to improve the delivery of infrastructure projects.
The Outsourcing Playbook sets out the Government’s guidance on outsourcing services rather than infrastructure projects. All infrastructure projects are required to estimate costs as part of the Government’s business case process, in accordance with the guidance set out in the Green Book.
Overseas trusts that incur a UK tax consequence are already required to register full details of their beneficial ownership with HMRC, ensuring law enforcement can access this information.
The Fifth EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) requires an expansion of the scope of the UK’s register from ‘trusts with a tax consequence’ to all UK express trusts and non-EU trusts which acquire UK real estate or have a business relationship with a UK regulated entity. Access to this register will also be extended to firms regulated for anti-money laundering purposes, and those persons with a ‘legitimate interest’ in the information. The Government will consult on the transposition of this change in due course. 5AMLD has a transposition deadline during January 2020. This falls within the implementation period, and so the UK will transpose this Directive.
At Budget 2018 Government announced an intention to undertake a full disposal of its Royal Bank of Scotland shareholding by 2023-24.
In its Economic and Fiscal Outlook (https://cdn.obr.uk/EFO_October-2018.pdf), the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast the total value of expected proceeds from sales of the RBS shareholding (paragraph 4.208). The OBR also estimate the gross and net cash flows of the financial sector interventions (table 4.44), noting that ‘the economic and fiscal costs of the [financial] crisis would almost certainly have been greater in the absence of these direct interventions to restore the financial system to stability’.
The Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) became operational in January 2018. OPBAS is part of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and supervises 22 professional body anti-money laundering (AML) supervisors which oversee the legal and accountancy sectors, as listed in the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. Neither OPBAS, nor the professional body AML supervisors (PBSs) supervise AML activities in the financial sector, which is instead supervised by the FCA. Fighting financial crime is a key priority for the FCA.
OPBAS’s key objectives are to reduce the harm of money laundering and terrorist financing by:
ensuring a robust and consistently high standard of supervision by the PBSs overseeing the legal and accountancy sectors;
facilitating collaboration, and information and intelligence sharing between PBSs, statutory supervisors, and law enforcement agencies.
The recent Financial Action Task Force (FATF) review of the UK’s AML regime recommended that the UK should closely monitor the impact of OPBAS in undertaking its work.
By the end of 2018, OPBAS will have completed its initial supervisory assessments of all PBSs. The Government will continue to work closely with OPBAS to ensure that its plans and activities are effective and risk-based.
The UK and the EU reached an agreement in principle, in December 2017, on the financial settlement for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. This was set out in the Joint Report on progress during Phase 1 of the negotiations. These principles will become legally binding through a Withdrawal Agreement as set out in the Government’s White Paper on legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement, published in July this year.
Post-exit, decisions on spending will be made based on domestic priorities, considering the economic environment, the fiscal position and the negotiated outcome.
This is a matter for the operationally independent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
This report was provided to the FCA and the police at the time, in 2014.
The FCA is currently investigating the extent and nature of the knowledge of the discovery of misconduct within HBOS Impaired Assets office in Reading and HBOS’ communications with the regulator after the initial discovery of the misconduct.
This is a matter for the operationally independent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
This report was provided to the FCA and the police at the time, in 2014.
The FCA is currently investigating the extent and nature of the knowledge of the discovery of misconduct within HBOS Impaired Assets office in Reading and HBOS’ communications with the regulator after the initial discovery of the misconduct.
The contracting of Section 166 reports to external firms is a matter for the regulators: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
The recruitment of Non-Executive Directors is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the appointment process includes vetting of candidates. HMRC takes significant care to make sure that individuals appointed to sit on the HMRC Board are suitable candidates.
Treasury Ministers and officials regularly meet with representatives of the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories, and of overseas jurisdictions, to discuss issues of mutual importance.
The Government will use its best endeavours, diplomatically and with international partners, including through multilateral fora such as the G20, FATF and the OECD, to promote public registers of company beneficial ownership as the global standard by 2023. We would expect the Crown Dependencies to also adopt public registers in that event, and they have committed to doing so.
This data is not collated centrally, and an accurate answer could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.
The vast majority of HMRC cases are waiting to be heard before the First Tier Tribunal. At 31 March 2018, there were over 25,000 appeals on hand in the FTT. Over 16,000 of those appeals are ‘stood over’. This is where HMRC and the taxpayer have agreed to put the appeal on hold waiting for a decision in a related case. Stood over cases are not actively progressed by the tribunal and can remain on hand for many years while the lead case is decided.
There are approximately 9,000 lead cases actively making their way through the First Tier Tribunal where HMRC are either actively working the cases, progressing them within tribunal directions, or are waiting either to be heard by the tribunal or awaiting a tribunal decisions to be issued.
During the last Parliament the Government announced over 35 measures and invested a further £800 million in HM Revenue and Customs to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. These measures include the Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes regime, introduced in Finance Act 2014, which aims to tackle the behaviour of certain promoters who meet various threshold conditions.
The Government is going further in this Finance Bill with a new Enablers’ penalty which tackles the wider supply chain of those involved in developing and implementing tax avoidance schemes.
Treasury Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery.
Details of ministerial and permanent secretary meetings with external organisations on departmental business are published on a quarterly basis and are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-ministers-meetings-hospitality-gifts-and-overseas-travel
I refer the Honourable Member for Luton North to my response to question 105360 on 12 October 2017.
The cost of the litigation will not be known until the parties have agreed on the amounts to be paid under a costs order made by the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree, the Court will assess the amounts. The costs order does not apply to Ernst & Young which was not a party to the litigation.
A number of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) officers across various compliance, legal, technical and policy teams can be involved in a case at any given time. HMRC officers may work on multiple cases, involving several different behaviours and risks at any one time. Therefore it is not possible to calculate the entire cost to HMRC of this particular investigation.
As this case was not in the costs regime, HMRC did not apply for its costs.
Since 2010, 9705 people in England and Wales have been successfully convicted for money laundering offences – most of these are under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which provides for various money laundering offences, including where an individual knows or suspects they may be facilitating money laundering or seeks to conceal criminal property. The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (MLRs) focus on ensuring regulated businesses put in place controls to guard against money laundering or terrorist finance. Supervisors are appointed by the Treasury to monitor compliance with these regulations and primarily use a range of supervisory tools to promote compliance, including warning notices, action plans, financial penalties or withdrawal of the right to practice. The vast majority of breaches of the MLRs are remedied or penalised using these supervisory tools. Since 2010, 10 people have been successfully convicted for breaching the Regulations.
The quoted Eurobond exemption is a longstanding exemption which enables UK companies to access investment capital from foreign markets and reduces frictions in financial markets. In response to concerns about the use of interest payments to shift taxable profits overseas, the Government has recently introduced a restriction on the deductibility of corporate interest expense. The rules ensure that companies cannot use excess deductions for interest expense to reduce their taxable profits and erode the UK tax base. This is forecast to raise approx. £1bn per annum.
The Government is committed to tackling tax avoidance and evasion at all levels to ensure everyone, no matter who they are, pays the right amount of tax at the right time. Last year, HMRC brought in a record additional £29 billion by cracking down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.
The Government is legislating for over ten measures in the current Finance Bill to further crackdown on those who try to avoid or evade paying the tax that is owed. This includes a penalty for those who enable the use of tax avoidance schemes that are later defeated by HMRC – which builds on the action which has already been taken in tackling marketed avoidance.
There are 25 Anti-Money Laundering (AML) supervisors in the UK. These include the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HM Revenue and Customs, the Gambling Commission and the 22 accountancy and legal professional bodies listed below:
These supervisors monitor and enforce compliance with AML legislation. This complements the work of law enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and local police forces.
The government has reviewed the supervisory regime and is implementing reforms to strengthen it. These include creating a new team – the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS) – within the FCA to help, and ensure, professional bodies provide consistently high standards of supervision. OPBAS will also work across the regime, to facilitate high standards amongst statutory supervisors and strengthen supervisors’ collaboration with law enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies, the FCA, HM Revenue and Customs and the Gambling Commission are subject to the Freedom of Information Act whilst the 22 professional bodies named above are not. The government supports greater transparency to help build public confidence in our regime, and the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations require that all AML supervisors, including the 22 professional bodies, provide information to inform the Treasury’s Annual Supervision Report.
There are 25 Anti-Money Laundering (AML) supervisors in the UK. These include the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), HM Revenue and Customs, the Gambling Commission and the 22 accountancy and legal professional bodies listed below:
These supervisors monitor and enforce compliance with AML legislation. This complements the work of law enforcement agencies, including the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and local police forces.
The government has reviewed the supervisory regime and is implementing reforms to strengthen it. These include creating a new team – the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision (OPBAS) – within the FCA to help, and ensure, professional bodies provide consistently high standards of supervision. OPBAS will also work across the regime, to facilitate high standards amongst statutory supervisors and strengthen supervisors’ collaboration with law enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies, the FCA, HM Revenue and Customs and the Gambling Commission are subject to the Freedom of Information Act whilst the 22 professional bodies named above are not. The government supports greater transparency to help build public confidence in our regime, and the 2017 Money Laundering Regulations require that all AML supervisors, including the 22 professional bodies, provide information to inform the Treasury’s Annual Supervision Report.
Since the last update to Parliament in November 2016, HMRC has tripled the number of criminal and civil investigations linked to the Panama papers.
To date, the work of the Panama Papers Taskforce has led to civil and criminal investigations into 66 individuals for suspected tax evasion, including high net worth individuals. As part of this HMRC has made four arrests; and carried out six interviews under caution.
Taskforce partners have made three arrests in relation to an organised crime group suspected of a £125m conspiracy to defraud pension investors, tax evasion and associated money laundering. They have also identified leads relevant to a major insider trading operation, in relation to which a number of individuals have been arrested and are on bail pending further activity.
UK law enforcement continues to interrogate and exploit Panama Papers related data, identifying previously unknown individuals, companies and properties, making links between them and providing intelligence and investigative opportunities.
The systems used to launder money and evade tax through offshore structures are complex and highly sophisticated. The Joint Financial Analysis Centre and HMRC’s expert analysts are using leading-edge technology to unpick these structures and trace them back to individuals. This work is painstaking and forensic and there are no easy shortcuts.
HMRC is not a prosecuting authority. Its focus is on building the strongest possible cases in order to secure convictions, and it expects to refer cases to the prosecuting authorities from autumn 2017 onwards.
The EU PANA Committee’s mission to the UK took place on 9 and 10 February 2017 and representatives from the UK government were invited to update the Committee on the UK’s progress in tackling money laundering, tax evasion and tax avoidance. As the proceedings were primarily concerned with the UK’s operational response, witnesses from the government’s Panama Papers Taskforce, including HMRC, the Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency, gave evidence during the allotted 90-minute evidence session. HM Treasury Ministers were not present.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) does not hold information on VAT to this level of detail. The Retail Export scheme is operated and administered by the participating retailers. Retailers do not separately identify retail exports on their VAT returns so HMRC does not hold any record of the actual VAT refunds made.
In a 2013 consultation document VAT: Retail Export Scheme, HMRC estimated that, in the UK, more than £300 million of VAT is refunded under the VAT Retail Export Scheme each year. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209487/20130627_Consultation_document_1_0_complete.pdf (Paragraph 2.4)
The latest National Statistics on usage of the Patent Box were published on 14 September and can be found at:
Non-Maintained Special Schools provide education within the meaning of the Education Acts, which is exempt from VAT.
The UK has an inflation target, not an exchange rate target, and the Government does not express a view on the level of the exchange rate. Manufacturing output has grown 6% since 2010, and has seen significant growth in key areas such as car production and aerospace.
No geographical breakdown of the flow of income between UK citizens living and working abroad in the EU is available.
As requested by the Hon. Member, a copy of the document will be made available in the Library of the House.
A proportion of our responses are published on GOV.UK, which you can find at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=hm-treasury&publication_type=foi-releases.
Following the failure of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) on 5 July 1991, Lord Justice Bingham was asked by the then Chancellor and Governor of the Bank of England (BoE) to inquire into the supervision of BCCI under the Banking Act.
The Bingham report was published through parliament in 1992 and is available in the public domain. An electronic copy is available on the Government website. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235718/0198.pdf
The Sandstorm Report, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and passed to the BoE on 22 June 1991, was released in 2011 and is now in the public domain.
The UK supports efforts to improve tax transparency. We initiated the international work on country-by-country (CbC) reporting to tax authorities during our G8 Presidency in 2013, calling on the OECD to develop a template for this as part of the BEPS project.
The UK was the first to commit to implementing the OECD model with legislation in Finance Act 2015. We signed the OECD agreement to share the CbC reports with other tax authorities in January 2016 and issued our final CbC reporting regulations on 26 February 2016.
The Government believes that there is scope for greater transparency by pressing the case for public CbC reporting on a multilateral basis. As the Chancellor has said, this is something that the UK will seek to promote internationally.
It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with these organisations.
In the March 2015 Budget, the Government challenged the accountancy and tax professional bodies to improve how they deal with their members who promote tax avoidance schemes.
The professional bodies have responded positively to this challenge and are working with HMRC to agree a new standard to which their members will need to adhere.
Tax policy is a matter for national governments and direct tax files are subject to a unanimous vote in the Council. The Government has made it very clear to the European Commission that the UK will not sign up to the CCCTB, or any other measure that would undermine our tax sovereignty or risk harming the competitiveness and growth prospects of the Single Market.
HM Treasury have the following secondments in as at 29th February 2016:-
Deloitte Touche | 1 |
Ernst and Young | 1 |
KPMG | 1 |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | 1 |
The Government is committed to countering tax avoidance to ensure all taxpayers pay their fair share. At Budget 2016, the Chancellor announced a comprehensive package of measures to tackle tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, and tax evasion by individuals and businesses. Overall, this will raise £12 billion by 2020-21.
We keep our policy on countering tax avoidance under continuous review to respond to emerging risks.
HM Revenue and Customs encourages people to come forward with information in a number of ways, and is already able to offer financial rewards to those who provide us with significant information relating to tax evasion or avoidance. The best way to do so is kept under review.
It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with these organisations.
In the March 2015 Budget, the Government challenged the accountancy and tax professional bodies to improve how they deal with their members who promote tax avoidance schemes.
The professional bodies have responded positively to this challenge and are working with HMRC to agree a new standard to which their members will need to adhere.
The Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England publishes the growth in the notional value of derivatives (see link below).
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fsr/2015/scrdec15.xlsx
This indicates that notional derivatives growth was -25.9% as of 20 November 2015.
The Financial Policy’s Committee’s indicator includes all major UK banks.
Individual bank derivatives exposures may also be found in their published annual reports.
The Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England publishes the growth in the notional value of derivatives (see link below).
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/fsr/2015/scrdec15.xlsx
This indicates that notional derivatives growth was -25.9% as of 20 November 2015.
The Financial Policy’s Committee’s indicator includes all major UK banks.
Individual bank derivatives exposures may also be found in their published annual reports.
It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with these organisations.
In the March 2015 Budget, the Government challenged the accountancy and tax professional bodies to improve how they deal with their members who promote tax avoidance schemes.
The professional bodies have responded positively to this challenge and are working with HMRC to agree a new standard to which their members will need to adhere.
It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with these organisations.
In the March 2015 Budget, the Government challenged the accountancy and tax professional bodies to improve how they deal with their members who promote tax avoidance schemes.
The professional bodies have responded positively to this challenge and are working with HMRC to agree a new standard to which their members will need to adhere.
Due to companies being able to make a Patent Box election up to two years after the relevant accounting period, we will not be able to get full figures for the first year of the Patent Box until April 2016. The following figures are therefore projections.
The estimated amounts of Patent Box relief can be found at the link below;
About 480 companies made Patent Box relief elections for the first year 2013-14 alone.
Local Compliance Fraud merged with Specialist Investigation in 2015/16. Later that year Specialist Investigation then merged with Criminal Investigation to form one directorate, the Fraud Investigation Service (FIS). The figures for referrals to FIS are in the following table:
Year | Taskforce Referrals Made | Adopted by FIS |
2012/13 | 336 | 52 |
2013/14 | 598 | 145 |
2014/15 | 596 | 276 |
The referrals are made by HMRC officers when they suspect or discover evasion. The process is designed to escalate this type of case to a specialist team for review. If the case is not adopted by one of these teams it is returned to the referring officer to continue the investigation.
The figures requested are in the following table:
Year | Referrals made | Adopted CI | Adopted SI | Adopted LC Fraud |
2012/13 | 2888 | 332 | 122 | 225 |
2013/14 | 3298 | 387 | 300 | 217 |
2014/15 | 2749 | 374 | 146 | 129 |
The referrals are made by HMRC officers when they suspect or discover evasion. The process is designed to escalate this type of case to a specialist team for review. If the case is not adopted by one of these teams it is returned to the referring officer to continue the investigation.
It is the responsibility of each Department to ensure they have sufficient funding available to cover any additional costs associated with either the National Living Wage, the 3.4 per cent increase in Secondary National Insurance Contributions (NICs) from 2016-17, or the apprenticeship levy. HM Treasury has only made provision for the costs that it will incur in respect of its own staff as a result of these changes.
The impact of the new National Living Wage and the end of the contracting out of National Insurance Contributionswill be considered during the Spending Review as part of an overall assessment of spending priorities and pressures across the public sector. The Spending Review will conclude on 25th November 2015.
The Treasury Ministers discuss a variety of issues with Ministers from other government departments throughout the year, including the run up to Budget.
HM Treasury has made no detailed estimate of the effect of the change in oil price since August 2014 specifically in relation to the cost of moving freight by rail, road or sea.
However Government have made clear that it expects industry to pass any savings that result from lower oil prices onto their customers.
The Treasury Ministers and officials discuss a variety of issues with a range of industry stakeholders throughout the year, including between the dates outlined in the question.
The Home Office does not comment on individual cases. All persons wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are checked against several watchlists and databases. Non-EEA nationals who do not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules are refused leave to enter/remain.
All persons wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are checked against several watchlists and databases. Non-EEA nationals who do not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules are refused leave to enter/remain.
The Government does not comment on the potential use of Unexplained Wealth Orders against individuals. They are available for use in cases of serious crime including arms trafficking and related money laundering.
Where assets are suspected of representing the proceeds of crime, the NCA and others consider all cases for denial and recovery activity across the full range of criminal and civil approaches, including the new tools introduced in the Criminal Finances Act such as Unexplained Wealth Orders. The Home Office continues to work with law enforcement agencies to encourage their use.
The Government does not comment on the potential use of Unexplained Wealth Orders against individuals. They are available for use in cases of serious crime including arms trafficking and related money laundering.
Where assets are suspected of representing the proceeds of crime, the NCA and others consider all cases for denial and recovery activity across the full range of criminal and civil approaches, including the new tools introduced in the Criminal Finances Act such as Unexplained Wealth Orders. The Home Office continues to work with law enforcement agencies to encourage their use.
The Home Office does not comment on particular cases.
The SFO is independent, it investigates and prosecutes only the most serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption cases and is superintended by the Attorney General. The decision to commence an investigation is that of the Director alone. Government cannot interfere with the operational independence of investigative or prosecutorial agencies.
The NCA estimates that there is a realistic possibility that the scale of money laundering impacting on the UK annually is at least in the tens of billions of pounds. The cost to businesses and the public sector from organised fraud is no less than £5.9 billion.
This Government has launched the new National Economic Crime Centre (NECC), which will deliver a step change in the UK's response to - and impact on - economic crime. For the first time, the NECC brings together enforcement and justice agencies (HM Revenue and Customs, the City of London Police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service), other government departments, regulatory bodies and the private sector with a shared objective of driving down economic crime in the UK. It will leverage a 'whole system' approach to enhance and coordinate our collective capabilities to target, pursue and dismantle the highest harm serious and organised criminals, including corrupt elites. Where appropriate this will include prosecutions.
This Government launched the new Serious and Organised Crime Strategy on 1 November and will invest at least £48m in 2019/20 in law enforcement capabilities to step up efforts to tackle illicit finance and enhance our overall response to serious and organised crime. These will include additional investment in the multi-agency NECC; increased frontline capacity and capability to tackle fraud; and an uplift in investigative and intelligence assessment capabilities at the National Crime Agency.
The NCA estimates that there is a realistic possibility that the scale of money laundering impacting on the UK annually is at least in the tens of billions of pounds. The cost to businesses and the public sector from organised fraud is no less than £5.9 billion.
This Government has launched the new National Economic Crime Centre (NECC), which will deliver a step change in the UK's response to - and impact on - economic crime. For the first time, the NECC brings together enforcement and justice agencies (HM Revenue and Customs, the City of London Police, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service), other government departments, regulatory bodies and the private sector with a shared objective of driving down economic crime in the UK. It will leverage a 'whole system' approach to enhance and coordinate our collective capabilities to target, pursue and dismantle the highest harm serious and organised criminals, including corrupt elites. Where appropriate this will include prosecutions.
This Government launched the new Serious and Organised Crime Strategy on 1 November and will invest at least £48m in 2019/20 in law enforcement capabilities to step up efforts to tackle illicit finance and enhance our overall response to serious and organised crime. These will include additional investment in the multi-agency NECC; increased frontline capacity and capability to tackle fraud; and an uplift in investigative and intelligence assessment capabilities at the National Crime Agency.
We recognise the vital role firefighters play and it is essential that fire and rescue authorities, as the employers, ensure that they receive the mental health support they require.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services is assessing how well services understand and meet the wellbeing needs of their workforce and where improvements could be made.
The Home Office does not collect this information. Financial and budgetary management, including any compensation payments made, are a matter for individual police forces and Police and Crime Commissioners. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Service, this is the responsibility of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations, including those into allegations of police wrongdoing and any decisions in relation to the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, are operational matters for police forces and are carried out independently of Government.
The Government is not routinely informed of the progress of ongoing investigations including any decisions related to disciplinary proceedings.
The Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. As part of its terms of reference, the Undercover Policing Inquiry is investigating the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government since 1968.
The Home Office is a core participant in that Inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the Inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The Inquiry will report on its findings once all evidence has been reviewed.
Investigations, including those into allegations of police wrongdoing and any decisions in relation to the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, are operational matters for police forces and are carried out independently of Government.
The Government is not routinely informed of the progress of ongoing investigations including any decisions related to disciplinary proceedings.
The Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner meet regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. As part of its terms of reference, the Undercover Policing Inquiry is investigating the state of awareness of undercover police operations of Her Majesty’s Government since 1968.
The Home Office is a core participant in that Inquiry and is in the process of making disclosure to the Inquiry of material relevant to the terms of reference. The Inquiry will report on its findings once all evidence has been reviewed.
The Government intends to publish its intentions about the review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 shortly.
Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), the breeding of genetically altered (GA) animals is generally classed as a scientific procedure given that it must be assumed that the genetic alteration may cause suffering until proven otherwise. Given the significant contribution GA animals make to modern scientific progress, the breeding of such animals has increased significantly over the last 20 years. In 2014, 1.94 million GA animals were bred which accounted for around half of all scientific procedures on living animals.
The breeding of GA animals is complex in which significant numbers of animals need to be bred in order that those with the desired genetic alteration can be selected. The biological inevitability therefore is that surplus animals, for example those without the desired genetic alteration, will be bred and not further used. Nevertheless, under ASPA, the Home Office is committed to ensuring that no animals should be bred unnecessarily and therefore we are taking steps to ensure that GA breeding colonies are managed as efficiently as possible.
ASPA requires licensees to apply the principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement) at all times, including in the context of the production and use of GA animals. The framework was created in consultation with GA breeding experts as well as animal welfare and animal protection groups. It provides background information, lines of enquiry and examples of acceptable findings, as well as the underlying performance standards and potential performance outcomes that establishments may wish to measure in order to benchmark their progress.
The framework is currently being rolled out in a number of establishments and we aim to publish it on our website over the coming months. This approach places the UK as a leader in managing the complex breeding and use of GA animals and we are aware of other countries which are keen to adopt our model once published.
The 22 cats used for the preservation of the species in the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2014 were involved in a project on the genetic status and health of Scottish wildcats. The Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris grampia) was once found across the British mainland but is now confined to the Scottish Highlands. The key aims were to:
• Undertake a targeted survey of Scottish wildcats and domestic feral cats in key areas in Scotland
• Assess the genetic purity of Scottish wildcats and degree of interbreeding with domestic feral cats
• Assess the health of both the Scottish wildcat and domestic feral cat population
To do this, wildcats and feral domestic cats were humanely trapped and given a full health check under general anaesthesia which included the taking of a blood sample to assess the genetic purity of the wildcat as well as to look for evidence of infectious disease in both. All animals were then immediately released back into the wild.
The findings of this study are being used to establish much needed baseline information which will inform key conservation management decisions for the Scottish wildcat in order to protect the population. The influence of feral domestic cats, both through interbreeding with wildcats and transmission of infectious diseases that may contribute to wildcat population decline, is being used to inform feral cat management and control programmes in wildcat areas, and may lead to specific disease control measures such as targeted vaccination.
There are 19 inspectors currently in post appointed under Section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. This figure includes the position of Chief Inspector. The Home Office is in the process of recruiting three further inspectors to bring the headcount to a complement of 22.
The turnover of inspection staff over the last three years is as follows:
Year | Number of inspectors left post | Number of inspectors recruited |
2013 | 4 | 5 |
2014 | 4 | 6 |
2015 | 6 | 0 |
We do not hold information on whether inspectors are former project or personal licence holders. None of our inspectors currently hold either a personal or project licence.
The Home Office has published detailed guidance (see: Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986), which describes how severity categories are to be defined. Each protocol set out in a project licence application is assigned a severity category, which is assessed in by the applicant usually in collaboration with the establishment’s Named Animal Care and Welfare Officer, the Named Veterinary Surgeon and the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body. It is then submitted to the Home Office for assessment by the Home Office Inspectorate who will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. In addition, where special species or projects with major animal welfare or ethical implications or any applications raising novel or contentious issues, the application will be provided to the Animals in Science Committee (ASC) for advice to the Secretary of State. Under section 5 of the Act, the Secretary of State considers advice from Inspectors and from the ASC, and classifies the likely severity of each of the regulated procedures specified in the licence.
The Home Office has published detailed guidance (see: Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986), which describes the requirements the Home Office places on researchers in the assessment of retrospective severity. At the end of a series of regulated procedures the project licence holder is required to classify the actual severity of the series of procedures carried out using observations taken from the animals during day-to-day monitoring. This information has to be reported to the Home Office annually, and at the conclusion of a programme of work, and following implementation of 2010/63 EU was published for the first time in the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2014.
Where appropriate, Home Office Inspectors cross-check and assess these records against the severity categories set out in project licences.
All project licences using non-human primates, cats, dogs and equidae, all those involving procedures classified as severe as well as those for education and training purposes or using endangered animals, are also required to be assessed retrospectively. In such cases, the Secretary of State requires an establishment’s Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body to conduct the retrospective assessment, which has to be submitted to the Home Office within three months in order that an inspector can complete the assessment on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The attached table contains separate tables for Scotland and Wales which show the number of procedures completed on each species in 2014 by (a) purpose and (b) severity.
The attached table contains separate tables for Scotland and Wales which show the number of procedures completed on each species in 2014 by (a) purpose and (b) severity.
The number of police officers per 100,000 population are published for each police force area in England and Wales in the ‘Police Workforce, England and Wales’ release. The latest published figures are as at 31st March 2014.
These figures can be found in table 4 of the data tables published alongside the release: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tables-for-police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2014.
Female genital mutilation is a crime and it is child abuse. This Government is determined to stamp it out.
At last year’s Girl Summit we announced an unprecedented package of measures to tackle it.
We have made real progress through strengthening the law to offer victims greater protection, consulting on mandatory reporting, establishing a cross-Government FGM unit, and delivering tailored resources for professionals and communities.
The Advisory Board is a strategic sounding board for the Alcohol Impact pilot, providing NUS with advice to enable it to:
• maximise the impact and success of the pilot;
• identify, and react to, strategic barriers and opportunities in the short,
medium and long-term;
• identify, and develop, influential and effective strategic partnerships for
the Programme;
• develop a strong legacy plan beyond the pilot.
Representatives for the board were selected by the NUS, in consultation with the Home Office, to provide a cross-section of groups who have expertise in a project that combines alcohol and the night-time economy, crime, higher education and community interests.
In addition to officials from the NUS and Home Office, 19 external advisors form the NUS Alcohol Impact Advisory Board.
They are representatives of:
• Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education
• Association of University Directors of Estates
• Addaction
• Portman Group
• Association of Town and City Management
• British Universities and Colleges Sport
• Research and Analysis
• Leeds University Union
• Universities UK
• Best Bar None
• GuildHE
• Newcastle University
• Northamptonshire Police
• Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers
• Greater Manchester Police
• British Beer and Pub Association
• Public Health England
• Best Bar None
The Advisory Board is a strategic sounding board for the Alcohol Impact pilot, providing NUS with advice to enable it to:
• maximise the impact and success of the pilot;
• identify, and react to, strategic barriers and opportunities in the short,
medium and long-term;
• identify, and develop, influential and effective strategic partnerships for
the Programme;
• develop a strong legacy plan beyond the pilot.
Representatives for the board were selected by the NUS, in consultation with the Home Office, to provide a cross-section of groups who have expertise in a project that combines alcohol and the night-time economy, crime, higher education and community interests.
In addition to officials from the NUS and Home Office, 19 external advisors form the NUS Alcohol Impact Advisory Board.
They are representatives of:
• Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education
• Association of University Directors of Estates
• Addaction
• Portman Group
• Association of Town and City Management
• British Universities and Colleges Sport
• Research and Analysis
• Leeds University Union
• Universities UK
• Best Bar None
• GuildHE
• Newcastle University
• Northamptonshire Police
• Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers
• Greater Manchester Police
• British Beer and Pub Association
• Public Health England
• Best Bar None
Since the introduction of the Trident Strategic Weapon System in 1994, no US nuclear warhead has been transferred to a Royal Navy submarine. Records prior to 1994 are not held centrally and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
HMS VIGILANT visited the USA as part of a routine engagement between the UK and the USA in support of the UK's deterrent programme.
The UK will never sign, ratify or become party to the treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. We do not believe that it will bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons as it fails to address the key issues that must first be overcome to achieve lasting global nuclear disarmament. We consider that the best way to achieve a world without nuclear weapons is through gradual multilateral disarmament negotiated using a step-by-step approach within existing international frameworks. The UK continues to work towards global nuclear disarmament through the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UK Government has not undertaken any environmental remediation at the Nevada test site. In 1993, following a report of the Australian Royal Commission on the conduct of British nuclear tests in Australia, the UK Government made an ex gratia payment of £20 million to the Australian Government. This payment was part of a full and final settlement of the UK Government's liability for any claims resulting from the British test programme. The Ministry of Defence has made evaluations of residual contamination on Christmas Island: the last in 1998 concluded that any required remediation had been undertaken. The Ministry of Defence has made no evaluation of the locations from which uranium used in the manufacture of UK nuclear warheads was procured, nor made any environmental remediation.
Creating a rationalised Defence estate, focused around clusters which better support and enhance military capability, will require relocation of functions.
Where an individual's post is being relocated outside the scope of their personal mobility obligation, they will be managed in accordance with normal Departmental policy and processes. Formal Trades Union consultation will occur well in advance of any closure.
The Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell has been renamed the Innovation and Research InSight Unit (IRIS). IRIS was established in summer 2016 and was launched as part of the Defence Innovation Initiative by the Secretary of State for Defence in September 2016. IRIS is based in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and consists of three full-time MOD employees who will be joined by staff from the Home Office. Formal funding is due to commence in Financial Year 2017-18.
Business rates are based on valuations from the Valuation Office Agency and we do not intervene in their independent assessments. We have put in place a £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme for England to ensure no ratepayers are unfairly penalised at the 2017 revaluation.
We have been clear that probation needs to improve and have taken decisive action to end current CRC contracts and develop more robust arrangements to protect the public and tackle re-offending.
We have seen examples of good and innovative work from CRCs. In Cumbria, adapting probation to a rural setting and in London, working with the Mayor’s Office on programmes to rehabilitate offenders involved in knife crime.
I still believe that public, private and voluntary organisations all have a role to play. The reforms we are making are crucial to better integrate the system so that different providers can work more effectively together. We will set out our proposals later this year.
The Government is keen to take steps wherever possible to reduce conflict within families when relationships come to an end. In that context, the Government’s current priority is to reform the law on the process for obtaining a divorce.
I am separately considering what measures Government could take to help more grandchildren maintain contact with grandparents following parental separation and will make an announcement about the Government’s plans in due course.
The new arrangements for night cover will promote the health and safety of those who live and work in Approved Premises and of the community at large. Under previous arrangements in some Approved Premises, only one member of staff was required to be awake during the night hours. The new contracts require two staff to be on duty and awake during the night in all Approved Premises. This model has been in operation for many years in certain parts of the country and has provided an effective service.
The new contracts make appropriate provision to protect the health and safety of staff, service users and members of the public. Services must be delivered in full compliance with statutory obligations and the Health & Safety Executive’s Approved Codes of Practice. Suppliers must be able to provide professional advice to their own staff, sub-contractors and the client where required.
The National Probation Service is monitoring the contracts carefully. It is working with contractors to address issues that arise and to consolidate the processes to ensure effective delivery of night cover.
We routinely publish Equalities Statements alongside consultation papers and Government responses to consultation on changes to courts and tribunals fees, which set out our assessment of the impact of those changes in relation to characteristics protected under the Equality Act 2010.
Every death in custody is subject to investigation by the police. The decisions as to whether or not to treat a particular death as a suspected homicide, and what information to disclose about the status of each ongoing investigation, are matters for the relevant police authorities in each case.
The number of deaths in custody has increased in recent years, as the prison population and the proportion of older prisoners within it have increased.
The table attached shows the number of prisoners who have died in each prison in each of the last six months for which annual data has been published. The annual information on deaths in each prison is published in the Safety in Custody statistics available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-december-2014-and-annual
Despite investment, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. We are fundamentally reforming rehabilitation services by opening up the market to new providers and incentivising them to focus relentlessly on reducing reoffending. For the first time in recent history virtually every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. We remain on track to deliver these key reforms by 2015.
Following the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice’s announcement on 15 July 2014 of the award of contracts to four companies to deliver the new electronic monitoring service, I am keen to work closely with Police and Crime Commissioners, police forces and other key stakeholders across the criminal justice system to ensure that opportunities to make use of the capability offered by the technology are fully exploited. We will be taking action over the coming months to engage with stakeholders.
Following the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice’s announcement on 15 July 2014 of the award of contracts to four companies to deliver the new electronic monitoring service, I am keen to work closely with Police and Crime Commissioners, police forces and other key stakeholders across the criminal justice system to ensure that opportunities to make use of the capability offered by the technology are fully exploited. We will be taking action over the coming months to engage with stakeholders.
The competition to select the providers of next-generation electronic monitoring services in England and Wales has now concluded.
On 15 July the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice announced the award of contract to four companies who together will deliver the new Electronic Monitoring service. British company Steatite will develop and manufacture the equipment. Capita will manage the overall service, Airbus Defence and Space will provide satellite-mapping and Telefonica will supply the network.
The table below sets out the amounts spent on electronic monitoring services provided by G4S and Serco for the years requested.
2011-12 | £116,906,087 |
2012-13 | £107,684,810 |
2013-14 | £36,987,915 |
The 2013-14 figure is significantly lower as we withheld payment in 2013 once we became aware of long-standing anomalies in the billing arrangements on these contracts. We have since recovered all money owed on the contracts from the suppliers.
In April 2014 Capita took over the management of the electronic monitoring service, on an interim basis until the new service comes into operation. Under these interim arrangements, G4S and Serco no longer have a direct role in delivering the service on the ground – and we have far greater oversight of costs and charging than previously, with direct access to the suppliers’ systems. We continue to manage these arrangements robustly.
The contract with Capita to manage the existing electronic monitoring service on an interim basis, until the new service comes into operation, will cost a total of £67.1m up to December 2014.
Under these interim arrangements, G4S and Serco no longer have a direct role in delivering the service on the ground – and we have far greater oversight of costs and charging than previously, with direct access to the suppliers’ systems.
I have previously announced that we will begin using the new tags with satellite technology by the end of the year with offenders subject to release on temporary licence from prison. This will be initially on a limited basis as the new tags become available, and will allow us to undertake assurance testing prior to wider rollout.
The Government has not yet decided on the future of the provision for case reviews. We have no plans to introduce specialisation in magistrates' courts. However, the Government is currently undertaking a review of the role of magistrates with a view to ensuring that the magistracy remains the cornerstone of our justice system. A public consultation paper will be issued later in the year. We are engaging with the magistracy and sentencers to ensure they are fully informed about the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.
The Government has not yet decided on the future of the provision for case reviews. We have no plans to introduce specialisation in magistrates' courts. However, the Government is currently undertaking a review of the role of magistrates with a view to ensuring that the magistracy remains the cornerstone of our justice system. A public consultation paper will be issued later in the year. We are engaging with the magistracy and sentencers to ensure they are fully informed about the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms.
The new Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool will be used to inform the allocation of cases to either the National Probation Service (NPS) or a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC). We have begun the roll out of the tool to all Trusts, and have ensured that it is designed to minimise unnecessary bureaucracy so that staff working in the NPS or a CRC can spend more of their time managing and rehabilitating offenders.
The RSR tool is an aid for probation staff and we have not issued magistrates with specific guidance on it. However, the Department engages regularly with the magistracy about the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms via the National Sentencer Probation Forum, as well as through other regular communication channels. Our intention is to ensure that the magistracy and sentencers more widely are fully informed about the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Training for the magistracy and any sentencing guidelines relating to the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 is a matter for the independent Judicial College and the Sentencing Council respectively.
Responsibility for judicial training lies with the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary, and is exercised through the Judicial College, an independent body. The Ministry of Justice is keeping the Judicial College informed of implementation plans for the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 and wider Transforming Rehabilitation reforms to enable the College to deliver training as it sees fit.
Universal Credit will make work pay. It will support people in Northern Ireland who are on a low income or out of work, helping to ensure that they are better off in work than on benefits.
The Minister for Skills in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has had an exchange of correspondence on the Trade Union Bill with Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Fair Work, Skills and Training.
On 8 October, he also had a telephone conversation with Ms Cunningham that covered the Bill.
On 7 September, he also met with the Scottish Trade Unions Congress to discuss the Bill.
I recognise that the steel industry is still dealing with very challenging global economic conditions. I am in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, the steel unions and continue my dialogue with the Welsh government and local authorities. The Government has left no stone unturned supporting the steel sector. We will continue to engage with the sector, as well as with the industry stakeholders, as we seek to find a long-term viable solution for the industry.