Kelvin Hopkins Portrait

Kelvin Hopkins

Independent - Former Member for Luton North

European Scrutiny Committee
30th Oct 2017 - 6th Nov 2019
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
11th Sep 2017 - 6th Nov 2019
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
6th Jul 2015 - 3rd May 2017
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
5th Jul 2016 - 7th Oct 2016
European Scrutiny Committee
15th Jul 2015 - 18th Jul 2016
Public Administration Committee
17th Jan 2011 - 30th Mar 2015
European Scrutiny Committee
25th Apr 2007 - 30th Mar 2015
Draft Deregulation Bill (Joint Committee)
10th Jul 2013 - 11th Dec 2013
Transport Committee
12th Jul 2010 - 21st Mar 2011
Public Administration Committee
16th Oct 2002 - 6th May 2010
Crossrail Bill
5th Dec 2005 - 13th Nov 2007


Division Voting information

Kelvin Hopkins has voted in 2350 divisions, and 171 times against the majority of their Party.

11 Sep 2017 - European Union (Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 237 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 326 Noes - 290
13 Mar 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 209 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 335 Noes - 287
13 Mar 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 212 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 331 Noes - 286
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 213 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 291 Noes - 336
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 213 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 289 Noes - 336
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 212 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 288 Noes - 338
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 213 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 288 Noes - 337
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 19 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 33 Noes - 340
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 214 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 288 Noes - 327
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 211 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 290 Noes - 332
8 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 211 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 287 Noes - 336
8 Feb 2017 - Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 68 Labour No votes vs 85 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 409 Noes - 126
7 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 209 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 293 Noes - 326
7 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 19 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 88 Noes - 336
7 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 207 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 281 Noes - 337
7 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 8 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 79 Noes - 333
6 Feb 2017 - European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 211 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 284 Noes - 333
1 Dec 2016 - Backbench Business - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 1 Labour Aye votes vs 59 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 2 Noes - 106
30 Nov 2016 - Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Labour Aye votes vs 157 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 70 Noes - 439
18 Jul 2016 - UK's Nuclear Deterrent - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 48 Labour No votes vs 140 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 472 Noes - 117
23 Mar 2016 - High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour No votes vs 153 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 399 Noes - 42
8 Dec 2015 - Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 169 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 26 Noes - 503
24 Nov 2015 - Trident - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 13 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 64 Noes - 330
11 Sep 2015 - Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 73 Labour Aye votes vs 91 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 118 Noes - 330
7 Sep 2015 - European Union Referendum Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Labour Aye votes vs 204 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 80 Noes - 516
20 Jan 2015 - Trident Renewal - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 101 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 35 Noes - 364
24 Nov 2014 - Recall of MPs Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour Aye votes vs 115 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 64 Noes - 271
27 Oct 2014 - Recall of MPs Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 41 Labour Aye votes vs 162 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 166 Noes - 340
26 Sep 2014 - Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour No votes vs 190 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 524 Noes - 43
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 21 Labour No votes vs 181 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 436 Noes - 49
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour Aye votes vs 185 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 56 Noes - 454
15 Jul 2014 - Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour No votes vs 191 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 449 Noes - 33
28 Apr 2014 - High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour Aye votes vs 185 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 50 Noes - 451
28 Apr 2014 - High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 186 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 452 Noes - 41
26 Mar 2014 - Charter for Budget Responsibility - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour No votes vs 201 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 520 Noes - 22
13 Jan 2014 - European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour No votes vs 108 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 366 Noes - 30
22 Nov 2013 - European Union (Referendum) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Labour Aye votes vs 32 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 33
22 Nov 2013 - European Union (Referendum) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 2 Labour No votes vs 7 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 8 Noes - 265
8 Nov 2013 - European Union (Referendum) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 4 Labour Aye votes vs 32 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 293 Noes - 32
5 Jul 2013 - European Union (Referendum) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 30 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 305 Noes - 30
3 Jun 2013 - Energy Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 208 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 20 Noes - 503
15 May 2013 - Economic Growth - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 219 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 130 Noes - 277
18 Mar 2013 - Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) ((No. 3) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour Aye votes vs 214 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 40 Noes - 508
29 Jan 2013 - Equality (Marriage) (Amendment) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 8 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 86 Noes - 31
28 Jan 2013 - Succession to the Crown Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 17 Labour Aye votes vs 154 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 38 Noes - 371
19 Dec 2012 - Charities Act 2011 (Amendment) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 32 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 166 Noes - 7
17 Oct 2012 - Oral Health Services - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 199 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 479 Noes - 33
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 69 Labour Aye votes vs 138 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 256
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 66 Labour No votes vs 139 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 233
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 51 Labour No votes vs 141 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 184
11 Jul 2012 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 46 Labour No votes vs 126 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 205 Noes - 228
10 Jul 2012 - House of Lords Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Labour No votes vs 201 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 462 Noes - 124
12 Mar 2012 - Backbench Business Committee - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 36 Labour No votes vs 50 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 82
23 Nov 2011 - Schengen Governance - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Labour No votes vs 171 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 461 Noes - 23
24 Oct 2011 - National Referendum on the European Union - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 214 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 111 Noes - 483
13 Oct 2011 - Procedure Committee Reports - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour Aye votes vs 56 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 63 Noes - 206
14 Sep 2011 - Fuel Poverty - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 180 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 303 Noes - 192
11 Jul 2011 - European Union Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 1 Labour Aye votes vs 201 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 212
30 Mar 2011 - Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 33 Labour Aye votes vs 170 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 37 Noes - 480
16 Feb 2011 - Incinerators (Hertfordshire) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour No votes vs 176 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 474 Noes - 23
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 14 Labour No votes vs 204 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 520 Noes - 27
24 Nov 2010 - Bookmakers and Planning (Haringey) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour No votes vs 204 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 517 Noes - 26
2 Nov 2010 - Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 217 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 31 Noes - 549
9 Sep 2010 - UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 29 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 310 Noes - 14
7 Apr 2010 - Business of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 224 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 314 Noes - 49
2 Mar 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Programme) (No. 6) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 263 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 272 Noes - 226
1 Mar 2010 - Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour No votes vs 198 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 85
23 Feb 2010 - Children, Schools and Families Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 248 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 386 Noes - 41
9 Feb 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour No votes vs 285 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 365 Noes - 187
20 Jan 2010 - Fiscal Responsibility Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 255 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 197
19 Jan 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour Aye votes vs 267 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 232 Noes - 277
19 Jan 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Labour Aye votes vs 258 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 183 Noes - 303
19 Jan 2010 - Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 247 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 263 Noes - 53
6 Jan 2010 - Sittings of the House - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 218 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 78 Noes - 254
12 Nov 2009 - Coroners and Justice Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour Aye votes vs 236 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 186 Noes - 243
10 Nov 2009 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 22 Labour No votes vs 278 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 286 Noes - 236
9 Nov 2009 - Coroners and Justice Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 31 Labour Aye votes vs 265 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 266 Noes - 274
21 Oct 2009 - Equitable Life - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour Aye votes vs 287 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 269 Noes - 294
21 Oct 2009 - Climate Change (Political Response) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour Aye votes vs 289 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 226 Noes - 297
13 Oct 2009 - Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour Aye votes vs 251 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 208 Noes - 260
13 Oct 2009 - Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour Aye votes vs 252 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 203 Noes - 261
8 Jul 2009 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 17 Labour Aye votes vs 269 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 83 Noes - 283
7 Jul 2009 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 16 Labour Aye votes vs 295 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 268 Noes - 311
6 Jul 2009 - Identity Cards - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 282 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 206 Noes - 293
6 Jul 2009 - Identity Cards - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Labour No votes vs 274 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 283 Noes - 203
1 Jul 2009 - Parliamentary Standards Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 262 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 234 Noes - 274
1 Jul 2009 - Parliamentary Standards Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 24 Labour No votes vs 239 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 247 Noes - 250
24 Jun 2009 - Iraq Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 288 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 260 Noes - 299
24 Jun 2009 - Iraq Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour No votes vs 294 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 305 Noes - 251
13 May 2009 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 267 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 77 Noes - 278
30 Apr 2009 - Members’ Allowances - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour No votes vs 225 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 355 Noes - 39
29 Apr 2009 - Gurkha Settlement Rights - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 28 Labour Aye votes vs 238 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 267 Noes - 246
25 Mar 2009 - Iraq War Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour Aye votes vs 287 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 265 Noes - 303
25 Mar 2009 - Iraq War Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour No votes vs 285 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 301 Noes - 265
23 Mar 2009 - Coroners and Justice Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 252 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 229 Noes - 263
17 Mar 2009 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 30 Labour Aye votes vs 247 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 217 Noes - 260
3 Mar 2009 - Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour No votes vs 260 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 271 Noes - 89
3 Mar 2009 - Select Committees (Chairmen), Liaison Committee and Green Book - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 219 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 242 Noes - 73
2 Mar 2009 - Political Parties and Elections Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 93 Labour No votes vs 155 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 235 Noes - 176
2 Mar 2009 - Political Parties and Elections Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 83 Labour No votes vs 157 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 223 Noes - 158
2 Mar 2009 - Political Parties and Elections Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 77 Labour No votes vs 156 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 213 Noes - 153
28 Jan 2009 - Heathrow (Third Runway) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 28 Labour Aye votes vs 281 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 278 Noes - 297
17 Dec 2008 - Value Added Tax - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour Aye votes vs 283 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 223 Noes - 303
17 Dec 2008 - Electoral Commission (Remuneration of Chairman) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Labour No votes vs 182 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 324 Noes - 32
8 Dec 2008 - Speaker’s Committee on the Search of Offices on the Parliamentary Estate - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 30 Labour Aye votes vs 274 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 281 Noes - 285
8 Dec 2008 - Speaker’s Committee on the Search of Offices on the Parliamentary Estate - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour No votes vs 282 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 293 Noes - 270
12 Nov 2008 - Regional Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 240 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 233 Noes - 250
12 Nov 2008 - Regional Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 245 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 254 Noes - 224
12 Nov 2008 - Regional Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 228 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 90 Noes - 235
12 Nov 2008 - Regional Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour Aye votes vs 224 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 229 Noes - 231
12 Nov 2008 - Regional Accountability - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour Aye votes vs 212 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 107 Noes - 219
10 Nov 2008 - Post Office Card Account - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 270 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 240 Noes - 278
28 Oct 2008 - Climate Change Bill [Lords] - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 261 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 202 Noes - 280
22 Oct 2008 - Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour No votes vs 263 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 322 Noes - 157
8 Oct 2008 - European Union (Transparency) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 190 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 169 Noes - 202
3 Jul 2008 - Members’ Expenses - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 50 Labour No votes vs 144 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 172 Noes - 144
2 Jul 2008 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 293 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 240 Noes - 303
25 Jun 2008 - Planning Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 271 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 198
11 Jun 2008 - New Clause 22 - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 37 Labour No votes vs 292 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 315 Noes - 306
11 Jun 2008 - New Clause 22 - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 26 Labour No votes vs 292 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 315 Noes - 294
10 Jun 2008 - Counter-Terrorism Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 300 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 287 Noes - 310
2 Jun 2008 - Planning Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour Aye votes vs 248 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 241 Noes - 256
6 May 2008 - Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 261 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 271 Noes - 215
31 Mar 2008 - Housing and Regeneration Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 27 Labour Aye votes vs 252 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 210 Noes - 263
25 Mar 2008 - Iraq Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour Aye votes vs 288 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 271 Noes - 299
25 Mar 2008 - Iraq Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour No votes vs 288 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 299 Noes - 259
19 Mar 2008 - Post Office Closures - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 19 Labour Aye votes vs 279 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 268 Noes - 288
19 Mar 2008 - Post Office Closures - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Labour No votes vs 281 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 290 Noes - 251
11 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 10 Labour No votes vs 288 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 346 Noes - 206
5 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 28 Labour Aye votes vs 299 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 248 Noes - 311
5 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 299 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 355 Noes - 218
4 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour Aye votes vs 286 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 68 Noes - 471
3 Mar 2008 - Point of Order - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 5 Labour No votes vs 266 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 276 Noes - 198
3 Mar 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour No votes vs 272 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 324 Noes - 152
26 Feb 2008 - Treaty of Lisbon (No. 7) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 288 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 170 Noes - 299
26 Feb 2008 - Treaty of Lisbon (No. 7) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 286 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 297 Noes - 168
26 Feb 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 277 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 175 Noes - 285
21 Feb 2008 - Banking (Special Provisions) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour No votes vs 261 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 268 Noes - 171
20 Feb 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour Aye votes vs 272 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 133 Noes - 331
18 Feb 2008 - Health and Social Care Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Labour Aye votes vs 260 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 179 Noes - 267
6 Feb 2008 - Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Labour No votes vs 280 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 345 Noes - 186
29 Jan 2008 - Lisbon Treaty (No.1) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour Aye votes vs 291 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 360
29 Jan 2008 - Lisbon Treaty (No.1) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour No votes vs 290 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 360 Noes - 167
28 Jan 2008 - Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 295 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 244 Noes - 303
28 Jan 2008 - Business of the House (Lisbon Treaty) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 8 Labour No votes vs 291 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 299 Noes - 243
21 Jan 2008 - European Union (Amendment) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour No votes vs 298 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 362 Noes - 224
9 Jan 2008 - Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 35 Labour No votes vs 256 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 481 Noes - 46
19 Nov 2007 - European Communities (Finance) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 3 Labour No votes vs 295 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 312 Noes - 215
25 Oct 2007 - Modernisation of the House of Commons - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 9 Labour Aye votes vs 46 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 36 Noes - 74
17 Jul 2007 - Pensions Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 17 Labour Aye votes vs 297 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 250 Noes - 305
17 Jul 2007 - Pensions Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour No votes vs 294 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 303 Noes - 253
25 Jun 2007 - Finance Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 7 Labour Aye votes vs 259 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 67 Noes - 269
11 Jun 2007 - Iraq Inquiry - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour Aye votes vs 282 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 253 Noes - 288
17 May 2007 - Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 240 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 0 Noes - 0
18 Apr 2007 - Pensions Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour Aye votes vs 273 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 260 Noes - 282
28 Mar 2007 - Communications Allowance - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 2 Labour No votes vs 257 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 283 Noes - 188
28 Mar 2007 - deferred divisions - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 18 Labour No votes vs 265 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 274 Noes - 250
14 Mar 2007 - Trident - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 94 Labour Aye votes vs 226 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 167 Noes - 413
14 Mar 2007 - Trident - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 89 Labour No votes vs 222 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 409 Noes - 161
7 Mar 2007 - House of Lords Reform - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 152 Labour No votes vs 162 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 416 Noes - 163
7 Mar 2007 - House of Lords Reform - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 96 Labour No votes vs 207 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 337 Noes - 224
28 Feb 2007 - Offender Management Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 24 Labour No votes vs 283 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 293 Noes - 268
7 Feb 2007 - Al-Yamamah Arms Agreement - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 13 Labour Aye votes vs 277 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 233 Noes - 295
25 Jan 2007 - Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour No votes vs 273 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 281 Noes - 246
9 Jan 2007 - Welfare Reform Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted Aye - against a party majority and against the House
One of 6 Labour Aye votes vs 274 Labour No votes
Tally: Ayes - 70 Noes - 286
11 Dec 2006 - Offender Management Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 27 Labour No votes vs 265 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 411 Noes - 91
11 Dec 2006 - Offender Management Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 12 Labour No votes vs 271 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 280 Noes - 213
29 Nov 2006 - Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 11 Labour No votes vs 276 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 289 Noes - 219
26 Oct 2006 - A Citizens’ Agenda - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 4 Labour No votes vs 219 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 256 Noes - 134
24 Oct 2006 - Police and Justice Bill - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and against the House
One of 15 Labour No votes vs 304 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 313 Noes - 272
17 Oct 2006 - Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment) - View Vote Context
Kelvin Hopkins voted No - against a party majority and in line with the House
One of 46 Labour No votes vs 49 Labour Aye votes
Tally: Ayes - 55 Noes - 240
View All Kelvin Hopkins Division Votes

All Debates

Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.

Sparring Partners
David Gauke (Independent)
(73 debate interactions)
William Cash (Conservative)
(50 debate interactions)
David Cameron (Conservative)
(50 debate interactions)
View All Sparring Partners
Department Debates
HM Treasury
(386 debate contributions)
Department for Transport
(163 debate contributions)
Department for Education
(161 debate contributions)
View All Department Debates
View all Kelvin Hopkins's debates

Latest EDMs signed by Kelvin Hopkins

28th October 2019
Kelvin Hopkins signed this EDM on Monday 4th November 2019

Water pollution in northern Sri Lanka

Tabled by: Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat - Carshalton and Wallington)
That this House expresses concern regarding water quality in northern Sri Lanka; is concerned by reports stating that the Sri Lankan Government refused to allow independent assessments of water quality in the region; notes that the consumption or use of water contaminated by waste oil has been linked to many …
11 signatures
(Most recent: 5 Nov 2019)
Signatures by party:
Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Independent: 2
Labour: 2
Scottish National Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
28th October 2019
Kelvin Hopkins signed this EDM on Monday 4th November 2019

Racist abuse on social media against Hamza Choudhry

Tabled by: Keith Vaz (Labour - Leicester East)
That this House condemns the online abuse on social media directed at Leicester City Football Club’s midfielder Hamza Choudhry during the Premier League match against Liverpool FC on 5th October 2019; expresses its solidarity with Mr Choudhry and applauds the decision of Liverpool FC’s management to report the shocking posts …
12 signatures
(Most recent: 16 Dec 2019)
Signatures by party:
Labour: 6
Conservative: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Green Party: 1
Scottish National Party: 1
Independent: 1
View All Kelvin Hopkins's signed Early Day Motions

Commons initiatives

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 been granted any Adjournment Debates

Kelvin Hopkins has not introduced any legislation before Parliament


349 Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Explanation of written questions
15 Other Department Questions
8th Feb 2017
To ask the Prime Minister, whether she discussed matters relating to (a) Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal and (b) prospects of Israel joining the multilateral Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with her Israeli counterpart during his visit of 6 February 2017.

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.

25th Jan 2017
To ask the Prime Minister, what plans she has to discuss with President Trump his policy on reducing nuclear weapons through negotiations during her forthcoming visit to the US.

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.

26th Apr 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many UK citizens living in other EU countries, excluding Ireland, derived incomes from UK sources in the most recent year for which statistics are available.

The information requested is not available.

22nd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if she will make it a condition of energy firms' licences that the staff of those firms' entire retail operation are directly employed in the UK.

The management of energy companies’ retail operations, including the location of its staff, is a commercial matter for the individual companies.

16th Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to ban auditors from selling tax avoidance schemes to their audit clients.

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.

21st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how many officials in his Department are employed full-time in connection with implementing the Eco Design of Energy Related Products Directive, 2009/125/EC.

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.

21st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, with reference to the energy savings opportunity scheme proposed in his consultation document of July 2013, what estimate he made at the time of publication of that document of the maximum potential value of savings to the UK economy arising from that scheme by 2020; and what his current estimate is of such savings.

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:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/323116/ESOS_Impact_Assessment_FINAL.pdf.

8th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what steps he is taking to fill the position of chair of the Energy Efficiency Deployment Office.

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.

23rd Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what resources have been allocated for enforcement action against employers who do not pay the national minimum wage.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, for what reasons he deleted Question 10 in the current consultation exercise on the reductions in the size of the Energy Company Obligation; and what his policy is on the Obligation and its size after March 2017.

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.

To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, what the electoral registration figures were for each ward in the recent confirmation dry run conducted in Luton Borough Council.

The Electoral Commission informs me that the confirmation dry run involved matching all entries on the electoral registers against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Customer Information System database. Entries would be marked as green if they matched with DWP, amber if they were a partial match or red if there was no match.

Results for all wards are available on the Commission's website here: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0003/163146/Confirmation-dry-run-2013-Results-Wards.xls

The ward results for Luton Borough Council were as follows:

Ward

Green matches

Amber matches

Red matches

BARNFIELD

82.0%

1.5%

16.4%

BISCOT

68.7%

5.1%

26.2%

BRAMINGHAM

82.8%

1.1%

16.1%

CHALLNEY

77.9%

2.8%

19.3%

CRAWLEY

79.6%

1.3%

19.1%

DALLOW

66.9%

5.0%

28.1%

FARLEY

76.6%

2.4%

21.0%

HIGH TOWN

63.6%

2.9%

33.5%

ICKNIELD

85.2%

1.3%

13.5%

LEAGRAVE

79.8%

2.1%

18.1%

LEWSEY

81.8%

2.3%

15.9%

LIMBURY

83.4%

1.9%

14.6%

NORTHWELL

81.1%

2.4%

16.6%

ROUND GREEN

81.1%

1.8%

17.1%

SAINTS

74.7%

3.9%

21.4%

SOUTH

57.6%

4.5%

37.9%

STOPSLEY

85.3%

1.1%

13.7%

SUNDON PARK

82.9%

2.0%

15.1%

WIGMORE

81.9%

1.2%

16.9%

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what plans he has for the Energy Company Obligation; and if he will make a statement.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, if he will make it his policy to return the Energy Company Obligation to its originally announced level.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, for what reason his Department's consultation on the Energy Company Obligation does not include a return to its originally announced level.

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.

24th Jan 2019
To ask the Attorney General, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that SFO investigations into (a) Sudhir Choudhrie and (b) Bhanu Choudhrie are (i) compliant with legislation and (ii) receive all relevant information.

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.

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Attorney General, what representations the Serious Fraud Office has received on (a) Sudhir Choudhrie, (b) Bhanu Choudrie and (c) other related parties.

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.

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Attorney General, what his powers are in relation to the Serious Fraud Office.

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.

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Attorney General, what is the status of (a) SFO and (b) CPS investigations into (i) Sudhir Choudhrie, (ii) Bhanu Choudhrie and (iii) other related parties.

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.

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Attorney General, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources available to the Serious Fraud Office to undertake investigations into (a) Mukhtar Ablyazov and (b) other cases of large-scale international money laundering.

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.

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
16th Mar 2017
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many patients were diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in each of the last 10 years.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

16th Mar 2017
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what comparative assessment he has made of survival rates for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in the UK and other EU countries.

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.

10th Jan 2017
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what contribution the Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell made to the National Cyber Security Strategy 2016-21.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many bidders for central government contracts have been debarred in accordance with the promoting tax compliance and procurement rules introduced in 2013.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley on 22 February to UIN: 26788.

Matt Hancock
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
17th Jun 2015
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether he plans to add train operating companies to the Government's list of Strategic Suppliers.

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.

Matt Hancock
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
24th Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have plans to hold meetings with (i) Sudhir Choudhrie and (ii) representatives of Sudhir Choudhrie.

The Department has no such plans.

24th Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make an assessment of the applicability of the Government of India's list of Undesirable Contact Men in decision-making on people that intend to undertake business in the UK.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.

24th Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will make an assessment of the applicability of Government of India international blacklists in decision-making on people that intend to undertake business in the UK.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has no plans to make such assessments.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which body has responsibility for monitoring the good governance of the recognised professional bodies.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish a table showing the number of (a) individuals and (b) firms licenced by each of the recognised professional bodies.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if will amend the insolvency legislation to provide for an independent ombudsman to advise on disputes.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish a list of the (a) public, (b) private, (c) self-regulatory and (d) other bodies which have regulatory responsibility for enforcing compliance with the Companies Act 2006.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish a list of the (a) public, (b) private, (c) self-regulatory and (d) other bodies which have regulatory responsibility for enforcing compliance with the insolvency laws.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps are taken by Companies House to ensure the legibility of the documents submitted to it.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will take steps to ensure that Companies House holds a legible copy of the Thames Water Utilities 2017-18 annual accounts.

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.

26th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish the number of companies with (a) 500 to 1,000 and (b) more than 1,000 employees.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many non-UK resident directors of UK registered companies have criminal convictions.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will exercise his powers under the Companies Act 2006 to wind up Business Bank Italy Limited.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what information his Department holds on the number of directors of companies registered in the UK who are aged under 16.

There are no directors of companies registered in the UK who are aged under 16.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the timescale is for the Insolvency Service to publish its report on BHS.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is responsible for monitoring good governance of the Recognised Supervisory Bodies.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish the regulatory bodies sponsored by his Department.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish the regulatory bodies sponsored by his Department that are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many UK resident directors of UK registered companies have criminal convictions.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what checks his Department carries out to ensure that dividends paid by companies do not exceed their distributable reserves.

The Department is not responsible for carrying out checks on dividends paid by companies to ensure that they do not exceed their distributable reserves.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will appoint an independent committee to examine the governance of the Financial Reporting Council.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will publish the dates on which his Department authorised the Financial Reporting Council to pass the fines levied on auditing firms to recognised supervisory bodies.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will appoint an independent committee to examine the governance of recognised supervisory 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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will introduce legislative proposals to prohibit nominee shareholdings.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will introduce legislative proposals to require companies to identify all of their shareholders.

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).

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what procedures are used by Companies House to verify the authenticity of company directors, secretaries and registered addresses.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether any action has been taken against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing information at Companies House which stated a director's name as The Chicken Thief and described his occupation as fraudster.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which Recognised Professional Bodies are authorised to regulate insolvency but are not subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

None of the Recognised Professional Bodies who regulate insolvency are subject to Freedom of Information legislation.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which organisations are authorised to act as Recognised Supervisory Bodies under the Companies Act but not 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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what progress is being made on the Insolvency Service's investigation into the affairs of BHS.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will introduce legislative proposals to prohibit directors of companies registered in the UK Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories from acting as directors of UK registered companies.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the role of Companies House is in combatting money laundering.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether he has taken any action against the promoters and officers of Magnolia Fundaction UK Ltd for filing information at Companies House which gave an officer's address as 00 Via Dei 40 Landroni, Ali Babba, Italy 00100.

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.

1st Mar 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, when the Nuclear Industry Council last met; what was discussed at that meeting and what decisions were made; and what changes have been made to the composition of the council since its previous meeting.

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/

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
19th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how his Department plans to (a) monitor, (b) enforce and (c) impose appropriate sanctions arising from the investor agreement between his Department and nine nuclear investment companies for the Hinkley C nuclear power plant.

The Low Carbon Contracts Company Ltd. (LCCC) monitors and enforces the Secretary of State Investor Agreement (SOSIA), and will impose any sanctions as necessary.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
17th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what estimate he has made of the cost of (a) emptying the Pile Fuel Storage Pond at Sellafield, (b) full radiological and toxicological decontamination of that pond and (c) conditioning, packaging and final long-term management of the spent nuclear fuel recovered from that pond.

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.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
17th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what criteria his Department plans to use when considering requests by a generating party to the investor agreement on Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that information on that agreement requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 should be considered commercially sensitive.

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.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will request that the Medical Research Council conducts an inquiry into the management of the PACE trial to ascertain whether any fraudulent activity has occurred.

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.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will prevent the PACE trial researchers from being given further public research funding until an inquiry into possible fraudulent activity into the PACE trial has been conducted.

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.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will take steps to identify those responsible for the Medical Research Council's policies towards ME research over the last decade; and if he will seek those people's removal from positions of influence over future of ME research.

Management of individual staff within the Medical Research Council is a matter for the MRC as the legal employer.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will review the policy of the Medical Research Council (MRC) in so far as it relates to addressing the dissatisfaction of ME patients with MRC's approach in this area.

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.

26th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions he has had with Acas on proposed office closures and staffing reductions; and if he will make a statement.

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.

26th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what discussions have taken place between Acas and the PCS Union on the proposed closure of (a) the Liverpool office and (b) seven telephone helplines across England and Wales.

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.

26th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what assessment he has made of the effect of proposed changes to Acas on (a) maintaining the functions of the service, (b) office closures and (c) job losses; and if he will make a statement.

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.

26th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether Acas has conducted an equality impact assessment on the proposed closure of its Liverpool office; and if he will make a statement.

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.

21st Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if he will investigate the time taken by Ofcom to come to a decision on complaints submitted in 2013 about unapproved format changes to the Choice FM radio station now operated by Global Radio; and what information he holds on when Ofcom plans to respond to those complaints.

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.

19th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether a decision has been made on the proposal to remove the 50 per cent cap on religious selection at free schools; and when her Department plans to publish its response to the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation.

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.

Nick Gibb
Minister of State (Education)
13th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much of her Department's budget for 16-to-19 education was not spent on education for that age group in each of the (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16 and (c) 2016-17 financial years.

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.

25th Apr 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit budget was for 16 to 19 education, excluding apprenticeships, in each of the last three years.

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

25th Apr 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much of the Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit budget for 16 to 19 education, excluding apprenticeships, was reallocated to other budgets in each of the last three years.

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

25th Apr 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much of her Department's budget for 16 to 19 education was underspent in each of the last three years.

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

15th Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many 16 to 19 free schools have opened in 2014-15 to date; how many students those schools have recruited in that period; and when details of the capital funding of those schools will be published.

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.

26th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many (a) schools and (b) academies have established sixth forms since January 2014; and how much (i) revenue and (ii) capital funding has been allocated to those sixth forms.

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.

26th Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how much (a) start-up, (b) revenue and (c) capital funding has been allocated to 16 to 19 academies and free schools that have opened since January 2014.

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

3rd Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many students are enrolled in those school and academy sixth forms that have opened since 2010.

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.

3rd Nov 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many students are enrolled in those 16-19 academy and free schools that have opened since 2010.

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.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many students enrolled to study AS levels in September 2012 in (a) school sixth forms, (b) academy sixth forms, (c) sixth form colleges and (d) 16 to 19 free schools.

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.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many students enrolled to study A2 levels in September 2013 in (a) school sixth forms, (b) academy sixth forms, (c) sixth form colleges and (d) 16 to 19 free schools.

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.

1st Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many and what proportion of students who enrolled in September 2012 to study AS levels in a (a) school sixth form, (b) academy sixth form, (c) sixth form college and (d) 16 to 19 free school dropped out during the first year of their course.

The information requested is not held by the Department for Education.

5th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the Answer of 16 January 2014, Official Report, column 656W, what change there has been in the proportion of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 achieving five or more GCSEs or equivalent at grades A*-C including English and maths in those (a) schools and (b) academies that have established a sixth form since September 2011.

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.

[1]http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/

5th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the Answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, column 637W, on sixth form education: student numbers, how the approximate total net cost of unfilled student places in school sixth forms, academy sixth forms and 16 to 19 free schools was calculated.

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.

Matt Hancock
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
5th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the Answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, column 637W, on sixth form education: student numbers, what these costs were per student.

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.

Matt Hancock
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what advance estimate he made of the number of students enrolled in (a) school sixth forms, (b) academy sixth forms and (c) 16 to 19 years free schools estabished since September 2011 in 2012-13; and what the number of students was in each case.

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

Michael Gove
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what the cost was of student places that were not filled in (a) school sixth forms, (b) academy sixth forms and (c) 16 to 19 free schools estabished since September 2011 in 2012-13.

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

Michael Gove
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
To ask the Secretary of State for Education, when his Department will publish guidance for sixth form colleges that wish to convert to become 16 to 19 academies.

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.

28th Mar 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, if he will make an assessment of the extent to which the appointment of Professor Dr Martin Selmayr as Secretary General of the European Commission followed professionally approved procedures; and if he will make a statement.

Appointments to the European Commission civil service are an internal matter for the Commission.

Suella Braverman
Minister on Leave (Attorney General)
28th Jan 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, if she will make an assessment of the implications for her Department's aid policy of the research on global income distribution published by Oxfam on 19 January 2016.

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.

2nd Mar 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what the (a) planning, (b) setting up and (c) running costs of the Civil Nuclear Showcase Event held in the Millennium Gloucester Hotel, London from 28 February to 1 March 2017 were; which companies attended that event; and what cost was charged to each company for its attendance at that event.

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.

Greg Hands
Minister of State (Department for International Trade)
8th Feb 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the (a) transparency and (b) impartiality of its assessment of the force majeure claims made by Govia Thameslink Railway for industrial action.

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.

8th Feb 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what evidence has been provided by Govia Thameslink Railway in its claim of force majeure to support the assertion that industrial action by staff is unofficial.

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.

1st Feb 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson, when engaged in any capacity by his Department, has been involved in assessing franchise bids by Govia Thameslink Railway while (a) providing consultancy advice for Govia Thameslink Railway and (b) holding shares in any company providing consultancy advice for Govia Thameslink Railway.

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.

31st Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what exemptions have been given for vehicles operated on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise since that franchise began; and when those exemptions were granted.

No exemptions have been requested for these vehicles in the period 2014 to date.

31st Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Govia Thameslink Railway will be in default of its franchise agreement if its applications for force majeure are not agreed by his Department.

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.

31st Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, which vehicles operated on the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise are (a) compliant and (b) not compliant with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010.

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).

30th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 1 December 2016 to Question 55011, for what reasons his Department provided the information requested in that Question to the Guardian newspaper in response to a Freedom of Information request but did not provide the information in that Answer.

The Department has not provided the information requested in Question 55011 to the Guardian.

30th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson notified the Department of any conflicts of interest while assessing the Govia Thameslink Railway bid.

The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

30th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether Peter Wilkinson has notified the Department of any conflicts of interest in the last three years.

The Department has robust safeguards in place to guard against any conflicts of interest.

6th Dec 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 17 November 2016 to Question 52776, and with reference to the letter of the same date from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport to the Chair of the Transport Committee, what the reasons are for the difference on whether Govia Thameslink Railway is able or not able to separate claims for force majeure from official and alleged unofficial action.

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.

2nd Dec 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 17 November 2016 to Question 52837, what statistical evidence he has received from train operators on delays or cancellations caused by the non-availability of conductors or guards.

I am not aware of any statistical evidence having been submitted to the Department by train operators about delays or cancellations so caused.

30th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information there is in the Govia Thameslink Railway remedial plan that designates train cancellations and lateness on driver-only operation (passenger) services caused by faulty rolling stock.

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.

30th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 22 November 2016 to Question 53644, on Govia Thameslink Railway, what previous claims for force majeure have been agreed by his Department in respect of industrial disputes on the railway.

Since May 2015, 4 events across 3 train operating companies have had force majeure claims agreed in respect of industrial disputes on the railway.

30th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2016 to Question 53179, what meetings officials of his Department have had with Govia Thameslink Railway since January 2016; and who was present at each such meeting.

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.

30th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2016 to Question 53181 and with reference to point 2 in the letter of 17 November 2016 from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport to the Chair of the Transport Committee, on what basis the calculation of the amount of farebox revenue lost as a result of industrial action was made in the absence of a completed assessment of the force majeure claim for such action.

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.

30th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 22 November 2016 to Question 53644, on Govia Thameslink Railway, if he will publish the force majeure guidance provided to operators.

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.

29th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the number of delays and cancellations that have been caused on Govia Thameslink Railway Driver Operation Only (P) services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.

Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.

29th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the number of delays or cancellations that have been caused on national Driver Operation Only (P) services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.

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.

29th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of which aspects of the Govia Thameslink Railway remedial plan have (a) been and (b) not been achieved.

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.

29th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department has received on the number of delays or cancellations caused on national rail services by faulty rolling stock in the last 12 months.

The Department does not hold information for the number of delays or cancellations caused by faulty rolling stock.

29th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether he has written to hon. Members to say that pressure by trade union leaders has prompted staff working for Govia Thameslink Railway to call in sick.

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.

28th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2016 to Question 53180, which two individuals reported minor perceived conflicts of interest; and what was the perceived conflict reported in each such case.

Information about the two individuals that reported minor perceived conflicts of interest is as follows:

  1. An employee (AA) of an organisation commissioned by the Department to produce a specialist report on each bidder’s response to a specific set of requirements in the invitation to tender. After attending a training session for specialist report authors that included material on conflicts of interests, AA notified the Department that AA had a relative who was employed by Southern Rail, on the operational side of the business, and that the relative held a very small number of shares in the parent company. The Department was content for AA to continue in the appointed role because AA had declared the perceived conflict of interests and because AA’s relative was not in a position where they could have any influence over the procurement process.
  2. An individual (BB) (not an employee of the Department) who was appointed to fill one of the quality and delivery evaluator roles. After attending a training session for evaluators that included material on conflicts of interests, BB informed the Department that a former colleague had joined one of the bidders and had drafted parts of the bid submission. BB informed the Department that the perceived conflict of interests was mitigated away because the parts of the bid submission that BB’s former colleague had drafted were not parts that BB would be evaluating.
28th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information he or officials of his Department hold on the number of delays or cancellations caused to Govia Thameslink Railway services by faulty rolling stock.

Govia Thameslink Railway report the number of cancellations and delay minutes that they are responsible for which includes delays caused by faulty rolling stock.

28th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations he has received on the application of the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 to driver only operation; and if he will place a copy of those representations in the Library.

I have not received any formal representations on this specific point.

28th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether civil servants employed in his Department have been consultants to Govia Thameslink Railway in its bid for the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise.

This information is not held in the form requested, and can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

28th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the level of planning by train operating companies of the availability of conductors or guards on train service delays and cancellations; and if he will place this information in the Library.

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.

25th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department has received from Govia Thameslink Railway on what the exceptional circumstances are that will allow trains to run without an on-board service supervisor.

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.

25th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department has received from Govia Thameslink Railway on the effect on service levels of the shortage of train crew on the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise.

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.

25th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what information his Department holds on the amount of time it takes to despatch a train under (a) driver and (b) guard conductor dispatch.

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.

25th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent representations he has received on driver-only operation from (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and (b) any other organisations representing disabled people.

We are not aware of any formal representations on this.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what evidence he has received and assessed in to claims that trade union leaders are encouraging Govia Thameslink Rail employees to take unofficial industrial action.

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.

17th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the data provided by train operating companies to his Department on the level and cause of cancellations and delays is the same data that has been verified by the Train Running Under System used by Network Rail, the Train Operating Companies and the Office of Rail and Road.

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.

17th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what independent verification his Department uses to assess the accuracy of information provided by Govia Thameslink Railway to his Department when assessing claims for force majeure.

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.

17th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what consultants have been used to assist his Department's assessment of Govia Thameslink Railway's claims for force majeure; and what the cost of that assessment has been to date.

No consultants have been used to assist the Department’s assessment of the claims for force majeure.

17th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the data provided by Govia Thameslink Railway, in respect of his Department's assessment of force majeure, on the number of train cancellations will be the same data that has been verified by the Train Running Under System used by Network rail, the train operating companies and the Office of Rail and Road.

Yes. The data providing the number of cancellations is derived from the industry system which captures train running data across the industry.

17th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for what reasons the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise agreement and remedial plan set out cancellation benchmarks whereas the Office of Road and Rail criteria for Govia Thameslink Railway set out combined cancellations and services late benchmarks.

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.

16th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the (a) actual and (b) default cancellation level for the southern section of the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise is.

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.

16th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what meetings Ministers of his Department have had with representatives of Govia Thameslink Railway since January 2016; and what the dates of those meetings were.

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:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-ministerial-and-special-advisers-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings-april-to-june-2016.

16th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether any conflicts of interests were declared to the Department by any person or organisation involved in assessing, awarding and overseeing the Govia Thameslink Railway franchise.

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.

16th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many trains Govia Thameslink Railway cancelled between the end of April and late July 2016; and what proportion of those cancellations were due to official industrial action.

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.

16th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the planning by train operating companies to ensure availability of conductors or guards on train services to mitigate against delays or cancellations of train services.

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.

15th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise agreement that stipulates as to whether it is in default of its franchise agreement for cancellations relates to (a) GTR as a whole, (b) Thameslink, Southern, Gatwick Express and Great Northern individually or (c) is at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

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.

15th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the actual level of cancellations was compared to the default threshold cancellation level for the southern section of the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise, as amended by the GTR remedial plan, for each monthly period since the beginning of 2016.

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.

15th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the actual number of train cancellations was compared to the default threshold number of train cancellations for the southern section of the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise as amended by the GTR remedial plan for each monthly period since the beginning of 2016.

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.

15th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the actual percentage level of cancellations was compared to the default percentage threshold cancellation level for the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise, as amended by the GTR remedial plan, for each monthly period since the beginning of 2016.

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

15th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the actual number of train cancellations was compared to the default threshold number of train cancellations for the Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) franchise, as amended by the GTR remedial plan, for each monthly period since the beginning of 2016.

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

14th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proportion of claims of force majeure made by Govia Thameslink Rail are related to (a) official industrial and (b) unofficial action.

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.

14th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many Govia Thameslink Railway trains have been short formed in the last 12 months.

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

14th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what reasons Govia Thameslink Railway has given to his Department for short train formations in the last 12 months.

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.

14th Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the non-availability of conductors or guards on train service delays.

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.

24th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on what date the current managing director of Passenger Services became a directly employed member of staff in his Department.

The current Managing Director of Passenger Services became a directly employed member of staff at the Department for Transport on 1st November 2014.

24th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will list the number of (a) closed and (b) pending applications for open access operation on the national rail network that have been referred to his Department since January 2010.

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:

http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/track-access/applications-decisions-appeals-and-agreements.

24th Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the working relationship between his Department's managing director of Passenger Services and (a) Renaissance Trains and (b) First Class Partnerships; and if he will make a statement.

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.

19th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether under the terms of its franchise agreement Govia Thameslink Railway is required to consult stakeholders before introducing a change to the timetable for its services.

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.

7th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he plans to announce the award of the next franchise for passenger services on the Greater Anglia line.

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.

7th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether his Department is required to consult (a) passenger groups, (b) trade unions and (c) Network Rail before the introduction of an emergency timetable on Govia Thameslink Railway services can take place.

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.

7th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether external consultants were involved in the design of the (a) Remedial Plan or (b) emergency timetable for Govia Thameslink Railway services.

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.

7th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proportion of non-planned Govia Thameslink Railway services were cancelled in each reporting period since July 2015.

There have not been, and there are, no ‘non-planned’ services.

6th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, whether the emergency timetable for Southern Rail services to be introduced from 11 July 2016 is in breach of the level of planned service train cancellations set out in the Remedial Plan agreed between Govia Thameslink Railway and his Department in February 2016.

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.

6th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many (a) planned and (b) unplanned cancellations of train services operated by Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) under the emergency timetable introduced from 11 July 2016 would place GTR in breach of the level of cancellations set out in the Remedial Plan agreed between GTR and his Department in February 2016.

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.

6th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many (a) planned and (b) unplanned train service cancellations in each reporting period would place Govia Thameslink Railway in breach of the Remedial Plan agreed with his Department in February 2016.

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.

6th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on what date the emergency timetable for Southern rail services to be introduced by Govia Thameslink Railway from 11 July 2016 was agreed by his Department; and what consultation his Department undertook on that timetable prior to its agreement.

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.

6th Jul 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions his Department has had with Govia Thameslink Railway on the threshold for (a) planned and (b) unplanned train service cancellations since February 2016.

We monitor GTR’s performance and we have ongoing discussions with them over the delivery of their train services.

16th Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the effect of dwell times on the (a) punctuality of and (b) number of cancellations on automated rail services.

There are no automated rail services on the UK national rail network.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, for which future franchises his Department plans to specify driver-only operation.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect on passenger revenues of an extension of driver-only operation on services operated by Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of the rail network that will be driver-only operated by (a) 2020 and (b) 2025.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on passenger safety and security of (a) the extension of driver-only operation on rail services operated by Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd and (b) the closure of ticket offices serving those services.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions his Department has had with Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd on closure or reduction in hours of ticket offices.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions his Department has had with Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd on extending driver-only operation on its services.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of potential cost savings from an extension of driver-only operation on Govia Thameslink Railways 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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effects of the introduction of driver-only operation on rail services on (a) passenger safety, (b) passenger assurance, (c) women passengers, (d) disabled passengers, (e) revenue protection and (f) passenger assistance.

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.

3rd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions (a) his Department and (b) the Office of Rail Regulation have had with Govia Thameslink Railways Ltd on changes to criteria for driver-only operation.

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.

2nd Dec 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate his Department has made of the additional costs to retro-fit the Great Western Inter-City Express Programme fleet of electric trains with diesel engines.

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.


26th Oct 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proportion of the railway is able to accommodate the transport of full-sized lorry trailers on trains.

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.


20th Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much and what proportion of its expenditure the Mode Shift Revenue Support scheme granted to (a) rail and (b) maritime freight operators in each year since 2009-10.


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


13th Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the (a) Mode Shift Revenue Support and (b) Waterborne Freight Grant schemes on modal shift of freight from road to rail and water since 2009-10.

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.

13th Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what his policy is on changing the (a) frequency and (b) volume of freight moved by rail between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports.

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.

2nd Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment he has made of the (a) frequency of and (b) volume moved by rail freight services between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports.

This is a commercial matter for the freight operator concerned.

2nd Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment he has made of the future viability of rail freight services between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports.

This is a commercial matter for the freight operator concerned.

2nd Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many rail freight services were operated between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports in each of the last 10 years; and what volume of rail freight moved this amounted to in each year.

Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.

2nd Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what financial support his Department has provided to rail freight operations from (a) Tilbury and (b) London Gateway ports in each year since 2009-10.

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.

2nd Jul 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what financial support his Department has provided to rail freight flows from (a) Tilbury and (b) London Gateway ports in each year since 2009-10.

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.

17th Jun 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will require train operating companies to submit to his Department reports on their revenue and profit margins.

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.

19th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an assessment of the potential effect of anticipated levels of rail freight activity at (a) Felixstowe and (b) Tilbury port in the next year will have on (i) rail and (ii) dock workers at those ports.

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.

19th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an estimate of the number of freight containers that will be moved from (a) Felixstowe and (b) Tilbury port by (i) rail and (ii) road in the next two years.

The department does not hold estimates of future freight container activity for individual ports, nor estimates of the mode used for onward journeys.

11th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will assess the potential effect on (a) jobs and (b) skills in the rail freight industry of Genesee & Wyoming's acquisition of a 95 per cent stake in Freightliner.

Freightliner is a private enterprise; its acquisition by Genesee and Wyoming is a commercial matter for the company.

10th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with (a) Freightliner, (b) Maersk, (c) Forth Ports and (d) Hutchison Port Holdings on the viability of the rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports.

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.

10th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what discussions he has had with Network Rail on the status of the rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports (a) in Control Period 5 and (b) under the Freight Utilisation Strategy.

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.

10th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what volume of freight was moved on the rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports in each of the last 10 financial years for which figures are available; how many road freight journeys would have been required to move that volume in each of those years; and how many extra gallons of fuel a modal switch from rail to road would have used in each of those years.

Freight volumes are a commercial matter for the freight operating company concerned and can be obtained directly from Freightliner Group Ltd.

10th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make an environmental impact assessment of the rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports.

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.

10th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent steps he has taken to encourage a modal shift from road to water and rail amongst hauliers and freight operators in (a) South East England, (b) East England and (c) the UK.

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.

9th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the economic effect of the decision by Hapag-Llloyd and Hamburg Sud to transfer operations from the Port of Tilbury to London Gateway.

None. This is a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

9th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision by Hapag-Llloyd and Hamburg Sud to transfer operations from the Port of Tilbury to London Gateway on (a) rail and (b) road freight journeys; and what projection his Department has made of how many containers will transfer from rail to road as a result of this decision.

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.

9th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the future viability of the rail freight line between Felixstowe and Tilbury ports; and when he next plans to meet trades unions to discuss that matter.

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.

9th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the decision by Hapag-Llloyd and Hamburg Sud to transfer operations from the Port of Tilbury to London Gateway on the local road network.

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.

9th Mar 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to ensure that toxic oil fumes from aircraft engines are prevented from entering cabins and cockpits and posing risks to pilots, cabin crew and passengers.

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.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-questions-answers/?page=1&max=20&questiontype=AllQuestions&house=commons&uin=225506

10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what interest rate would have been charged if Network Rail had borrowed from the Government in each year of control periods 3, 4 and 5.

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.

10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the additional annual cost to Network Rail of borrowing from private financial markets rather than the Government in control periods 3, 4 and 5.

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.

10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what interest rate was applied to Network Rail's borrowing from the markets in each year of control periods 3, 4 and 5.

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.

10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the potential savings in each control period to 2019 if Network Rail borrowed to invest from the Government rather than the private sector.

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.

10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what estimate he has made of the (a) total premium Network Rail has paid for borrowing from private financial markets in each year since 2001 and (b) savings Network Rail would have made since 2001 if it had borrowed from the Government and not private financial markets.

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.

7th Jul 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proportion of Britain's rail track mileage is capable of accommodating full-sized lorry trailers on trains.

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.

12th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what proposals he has to further devolve responsibility for railways to the Scottish and Welsh governments and the English regions.

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.

12th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with train operating companies on changes in staffing for revenue protection functions.

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].

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent discussions he has had with representatives of (a) Passenger Transport Executives and (b) Centro regarding rail devolution policy.

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.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what amount of ticket revenue was shared between (a) London Midland, (b) Virgin West Coast and (c) Arriva Cross Country through the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services System in each of the last five years.

The Department does not hold this information.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent representations he has received from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system.

We have received no recent representations from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent representations he has received from train operating companies on the performance of the Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services system and the effect on the future sharing of ticket revenue of changes in numbers of passenger journeys from and to stations on the London Midland line.

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.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what protection of existing (a) staffing levels and (b) tickets revenue sharing arrangements with other train operating companies were secured in negotiations with Govia over the extension from the London passenger rail franchise; and if he will seek such protections in future negotiations over the planned direct award of the franchise to Govia.

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.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects negotiations to begin with Govia over the direct award extension from September 2015 to June 2017 of the London Midland passenger rail franchise.

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.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what level of revenue support Govia will be entitled to in each accounting period of the direct award of the London Midland rail passenger franchise agreement to June.

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.

10th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he has taken to devolve decisions on London Midland passenger rail services to a local level; and what proposals on such lines he has made to the current franchisee.

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.

20th Jun 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the cost to the public purse was of providing free TV licences to people over the age of 75 for qualifying residents in (a) Luton North constituency, and (b) Luton local authority area in (i) 2017-18 and (ii) 2018-19.

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

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
5th Sep 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what processes her Department uses to (a) notify people of their state pension entitlement and (b) advise them of the number of additional qualifying years of national insurance contributions required to obtain the full state pension; and whether that information is provided via a single communication.

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

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
5th Sep 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people have (a) made additional payments to increase the number of qualifying years of National Insurance contributions they require to claim the full state pension and (b) by making such payments have (i) exceeded the 35 years required to claim that pension and (ii) been refunded for making overpayments.

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

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
5th Sep 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether the requirement to have 35 qualifying years of national insurance contributions to be eligible for a full state pension is set out in correspondence sent to people in relation to (a) their national insurance record and (b) their state pension.

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

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
14th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to require companies with a deficit on their defined benefit pension scheme to seek the approval of the Pensions Regulator before agreeing to any merger or takeover.

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.

Guy Opperman
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much (a) basic and (b) additional state pension per week that woman born on 5 April 1953 would receive with 35 years' worth of both National Insurance Contributions and contracting-in to the state second pension; and how much in the new state pension a woman born on 6 April 1953 would receive with 35 years' worth of both National Insurance Contributions and contracting-in to the state second pension.

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.

24th Feb 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the end-dates are of his Department's contracts with Hewlett Packard Enterprise; which such contracts he plans to extend, for what reasons and to what dates; and if he will make a statement.

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.

Justin Tomlinson
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
24th Feb 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his Department's plans are for the delivery of IT and digital services after the end dates of current contracts.

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.

Justin Tomlinson
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
29th Jan 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what his Department's plans are for the procurement of IT and digital services beyond the end dates of its current contracts.

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.

Justin Tomlinson
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
21st Jan 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the reasons are for the delay in transferring his Department's Transactional Bulk Print Services contract to Williams Lea from the current provider, Hewlett Packard, originally scheduled for February 2015; what the revised timetable is for that transfer; what assessment he has made of potential risks to service delivery arising from loss of key staff as a result of that delay; and what contingency plans his Department has prepared to mitigate such risks.

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.

Justin Tomlinson
Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
28th Nov 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions his Department has had with NICE on acceptance of the classification of myalgic encephalomyelitis as a neurological disease as defined by the World Health Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

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.

21st Mar 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent estimate he has made of sleep-in back liability for providers in Bedfordshire.

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.

Caroline Dinenage
Minister of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport)
27th Mar 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, which hospital in the UK treats the largest number of primary referrals from tertiary centres for children with arrhythmic heart conditions; and if he will make a statement.

Information is not available in the format requested, as we are unable to identify in Hospital Episode Statistics primary referrals from tertiary centres.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will institute a revision of NICE guidelines for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy.

I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23 November 2016 to his Question 53645.

22nd Nov 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will remove CBT and GET from the list of treatments for ME patients.

I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 23 November 2016 to his Question 53645.

31st Oct 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he plans to publish the equality impact assessment on the proposed reduction to staff levels in his Department.

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.

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps his Department plans to take to address the health effects of alcohol on the population in the next year.

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.

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to his Department's First Interim Report on the Responsibility Deal on Alcohol, published in April 2014, what evidence his Department holds that the reduction in alcohol sales of 253 million units is as a result of industry action.

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.

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, with reference to the Answer to Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town of 1 April 2014, Official Report, House of Lords, column 53WA, on alcohol, what action his Department is taking to address the predicted 0.8 per cent increase in alcohol consumption.

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.

17th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people in the 70 to 79 age group have received a shingles vaccination since the vaccination programme began in September 2013; how many people he expects to take up the offer in the current cohort; when he expects that figure to be met; and if he will make a statement.

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.

18th Jul 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, when he plans to bring the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of North Macedonia before the House for ratification.

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.

21st Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan on legal action against Mukhtar Ablyazov in relation to accusations of international money laundering.

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.

21st Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what recent representations he has made to his Khazakstani counterpart on the former banker Mukhtar Ablyazov who is accused of murder.

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”.

19th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to the joint statement signed by the UK, the US and France on 7 July 2017, for what reasons the new ban treaty risks undermining the existing international security architecture; and what steps he has taken to promote the effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

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.

18th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, with reference to his Department's statement of 8 July on the outcome of the United Nations' Nuclear Weapons Ban treaty, which multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations using a step-by-step approach the UK is currently engaged in; and how many nuclear warheads have been removed from deployment as a result of such negotiations since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

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.

27th Mar 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment he has made of the effect on UK security policy of the Tbilisi Declaration adopted at the 25th annual session of the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe in July 2016 to give support to the 2018 UN international conference on nuclear disarmament at the highest level.

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.

24th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what his policy is on sanctions against Israel; and what assessment he has made of the compliance of that policy with international law and relevant UN resolutions.

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.

22nd Oct 2019
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government will take a systematic approach to the UK's infrastructure in the proposed National Infrastructure Strategy as advocated by the Institution of Civil Engineers; and whether this will include a programme of comprehensive electrification of Britain's rail track to help meet the UK's climate change 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.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
22nd Oct 2019
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps the Government is taking to prevent major infrastructure projects from exceeding their budgets and completion schedules (a) now and (b) in the future.

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.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
22nd Oct 2019
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment the Government has made of the implications for its policies of the recommendations made by the Institution of Civil Engineers in its paper entitled Reducing the gap between cost estimates and outturns for major projects and programmes.

The Government considers all reports from relevant stakeholders, and considerable work is taking place across government to improve the delivery of infrastructure projects.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
22nd Oct 2019
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Government will make it mandatory for all public infrastructure owners to undertake a should-cost estimate as a reference point, as recommended in the Government's Outsourcing Playbook and endorsed by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

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.

Jesse Norman
Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
5th Dec 2018
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Government will commit to the full disclosure of the beneficiaries of offshore trusts.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
5th Dec 2018
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the likelihood of recouping the cost to the public purse of the bailout of the Royal Bank of Scotland by planned sale of shares by 2023-24.

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’.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
5th Dec 2018
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision in improving standards in the financial sector.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
11th Sep 2018
What steps he is taking to reduce the total net annual financial outflow from the UK to the EU; and if he will make a statement.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
26th Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the publication of the Turnbull Report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business, whether he has invited any regulatory body to bring charges against the parties named in that report.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
26th Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the publication of the Turnbull Report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business, whether he has referred the Turnbull report to the Serious Fraud Office.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
21st Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if will bring forward legislative proposals to exclude organisations involved in tax avoidance from preparing reports required by section 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

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).

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
21st Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to prevent people from organisations involved in tax avoidance from being permitted to sit on the HMRC Board.

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.

21st Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has met representatives of the Channel Islands to discuss the potential publication of their registers of the beneficial ownership of companies.

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.

John Glen
Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
21st Jun 2018
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many court and tribunal cases (a) brought by HMRC and (b) against HMRC are awaiting a hearing.

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.

19th Oct 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the tax tribunal's decision in the case of Stagecoach PLC and Stagecoach Group Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, what assessment he has made of the role of KPMG in selling the scheme which the tribunal found to be unlawful.

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.

19th Oct 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the Government of Jersey on the closing of BHS.

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

19th Oct 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress his Department has made in its inquiry into the Panama Papers.

I refer the Honourable Member for Luton North to my response to question 105360 on 12 October 2017.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what was the cost of litigation in the case of Greene King Plc & Anor v HM Revenue and Customs; and how much of this has been recovered from Ernst & Young.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the cost to the public purse has been of the case of Stagecoach Group PLC and Stagecoach Holdings Limited and the Commissioners for Her Majesty; and how much of that cost has been recovered.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many successful prosecutions there have been for offences under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 in each year from 2010.

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.

Steve Barclay
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will bring forward legislative proposals (a) to amend section 841 of the UK Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to withdraw recognition of the securities issued at the Channel Islands Stock Exchange and (b) under which UK companies would be required to withhold 20 per cent from the payment of interest to all Jersey-based companies and remit that sum to HM Revenue and Customs.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will commission an independent inquiry into tax avoidance schemes used by BHS.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what organisations are responsible for monitoring and enforcing anti-money laundering laws.

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:

  1. Association of Accounting Technicians
  2. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
  3. Association of International Accountants
  4. Association of Taxation Technicians
  5. Chartered Institute of Legal Executives
  6. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
  7. Chartered Institute of Taxation
  8. Council for Licensed Conveyancers
  9. Faculty of Advocates
  10. Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury
  11. General Council of the Bar
  12. General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland
  13. Insolvency Practitioners Association
  14. Institute of Certified Bookkeepers
  15. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
  16. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland
  17. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
  18. Institute of Financial Accountants
  19. International Association of Bookkeepers
  20. Law Society
  21. Law Society of Northern Ireland
  22. Law Society of Scotland

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.

Steve Barclay
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, which organisations responsible for monitoring and enforcing anti-money laundering laws are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

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:

  1. Association of Accounting Technicians
  2. Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
  3. Association of International Accountants
  4. Association of Taxation Technicians
  5. Chartered Institute of Legal Executives
  6. Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
  7. Chartered Institute of Taxation
  8. Council for Licensed Conveyancers
  9. Faculty of Advocates
  10. Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury
  11. General Council of the Bar
  12. General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland
  13. Insolvency Practitioners Association
  14. Institute of Certified Bookkeepers
  15. Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
  16. Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland
  17. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland
  18. Institute of Financial Accountants
  19. International Association of Bookkeepers
  20. Law Society
  21. Law Society of Northern Ireland
  22. Law Society of Scotland

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.

Steve Barclay
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what progress his Department has made in its inquiry into the Panama Papers.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what dates he has met the EU PANA Committee; what was the duration of each of those meetings; and what topics were discussed at each.

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.

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much VAT has been refunded to visitors to the UK in each of the last five years.

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)

14th Sep 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much and to who the annual tax reliefs have been granted under the Patent-Box scheme.

The latest National Statistics on usage of the Patent Box were published on 14 September and can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643860/Patent_Box_Statistics_2014-15.pdf

24th Apr 2017
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate his Department has made of the cost of granting a VAT exemption to non-maintained special schools that support severely disabled children to bring those schools into line with the VAT exemption that applies to maintained special schools, special academies and special free schools.

Non-Maintained Special Schools provide education within the meaning of the Education Acts, which is exempt from VAT.

19th Oct 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his Department has made an assessment of the effect on the manufacturing industry of the depreciation of sterling since the EU referendum; and if he will make a statement.

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.

3rd May 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the net flow of income was between the UK and other EU countries except Ireland from UK citizens living and working abroad in the EU for the most recent year for which figures are available.

No geographical breakdown of the flow of income between UK citizens living and working abroad in the EU is available.

26th Apr 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the total amount of income paid to UK citizens living in other EU countries except Ireland which derived from UK sources in the most recent year for which statistics are available.

The information requested is not available.

26th Apr 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the total amount remitted to non-UK citizens living in other EU countries except Ireland, by non-UK citizens from the EU working in the UK in the last year.

The information requested is not available.

26th Apr 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion of UK citizens living in other EU countries excluding Ireland, derived incomes from UK sources in the most recent year for which statistics are available.

The information requested is not available.

23rd Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will place a full copy of Lord Justice Bingham's report Inquiry into the Supervision of The Bank of Credit and Commerce International, published in October 1992, on the closure of The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (HC 198 1992/93), in the Library.

As requested by the Hon. Member, a copy of the document will be made available in the Library of the House.

17th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether all documents released by his Department as a result of Freedom of Information requests are placed on his Department's website.

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.

17th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what independent inspectors were appointed to investigate the frauds at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; when those inspectors reported; and when their reports were published.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to require large companies to publish a country-by-country report in their annual financial report.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the judgment in Schofield v HM Revenue and Customs [2012] EWCA Civ 927 (11 July 2012), what steps his Department has taken against PricewaterhouseCoopers for designing and marketing the tax avoidance scheme rejected by the court.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the European Commission about introduction of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many staff are seconded to his Department by (a) KPMG, (b) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (c) Deloitte and (d) Ernst & Young.

HM Treasury have the following secondments in as at 29th February 2016:-

Deloitte Touche

1

Ernst and Young

1

KPMG

1

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

1

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will appoint an independent commission to investigate the role of PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte in designing, selling and implementing tax avoidance schemes.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will bring forward legislative proposals to provide that whistleblowers whose evidence leads to a successful prosecution of tax evasion or avoidance receive a portion of the tax penalties levied on the guilty party.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the judgment in Stagecoach Group PLC & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2016] UKFTT 120 (tc) (10 February 2016), what steps his Department has taken against KPMG for designing and marketing the tax avoidance scheme rejected by the court.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the exposure to derivatives is of each bank holding a deposit-taking licence.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the notional value is of derivatives held by banks regulated by the UK authorities.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the judgment in Iliffe News and Media Ltd & Ors v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKFTT 696 (TC) (1 November 2012), what steps his Department has taken against Ernst & Young for designing and marketing the tax avoidance scheme rejected by the court.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in UBS AG & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2016] UKSC 13 (9 March 2016), what steps his Department has taken against Deloitte for designing and marketing the tax avoidance scheme rejected by the court.

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.

16th Mar 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many companies have applied for the lower rate of corporation tax under Patent Box.

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;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487119/Dec15_expenditure_reliefs_Final.xlsx.pdf

About 480 companies made Patent Box relief elections for the first year 2013-14 alone.

5th Jan 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many evasion referrals to the HM Revenue and Customs Evasion Referral Team were made by the taskforces established to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance in each tax year since 2012-13; and how many such referrals were adopted as working cases by the HM Revenue and Customs (a) Criminal Investigation, (b) Specialist Investigation and (c) Local Compliance Fraud business unit.

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.


5th Jan 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many evasion referrals were made to the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) Evasion Referral Team in each year since 2012-13; and how many such referrals were adopted as working cases by HMRC's (a) Criminal Investigation, (b) Specialist Investigation and (c) Local Compliance Fraud business unit in each such year.

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.


5th Jan 2016
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what provision his Department has made for public sector employers to pay the (a) national living wage, (b) 3.4 per cent increase in Secondary National Insurance Contributions (NICs) from 2016-17 following the abolition of Contracted Out NICs and (c) Apprenticeship Levy.

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.

Greg Hands
Minister of State (Department for International Trade)
21st Oct 2015
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what provision his Department has made for (a) payment of the national living wage by public sector employers and (b) the 3.4 per cent increase in Secondary National Insurance Contributions (NICs) from 2016-17 following the abolition of Contracted Out NICs.

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.

Greg Hands
Minister of State (Department for International Trade)
23rd Mar 2015
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the effects on people's health of the cuts to alcohol duty in the Budget 2015.

The Treasury Ministers discuss a variety of issues with Ministers from other government departments throughout the year, including the run up to Budget.

Priti Patel
Home Secretary
19th Mar 2015
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the effects of changes in oil prices since August 2014 on the cost of moving freight by (a) rail, (b) road and (c) sea.

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.

Priti Patel
Home Secretary
19th Mar 2015
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what meetings (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department had on alcohol duty with representatives of (i) the Wine and Spirits Trade Association, (ii) the Scotch Whisky Association, (iii) the British Beer and Pub Association, (iv) Diageo, (v) SAB Miller and (vi) the Portman Group between 1 November 2014 and 18 March 2015.

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.

Priti Patel
Home Secretary
24th Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his Department (a) international blacklists and (b) the Government of India's Undesirable Contact Men are included in the criteria for the granting of residence to (a) Sudhir Choudhrie, (b) Bhanu Choudhrie and (c) other people on those lists.

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.

23rd Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his Department uses the Government of India's list of Undesirable Contact Men as a criterion of decisions on who can reside in the UK.

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.

21st Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has made of the potential use of Unexplained Wealth Orders against Sudhir Choudhrie and related parties.

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.

Ben Wallace
Secretary of State for Defence
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Unexplained Wealth Orders in tackling the illicit arms trade and related financial flows in London.

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.

Ben Wallace
Secretary of State for Defence
21st Jan 2019
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has powers to require the SFO to investigate cases of international money laundering.

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.

Ben Wallace
Secretary of State for Defence
5th Dec 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps the Government is taking to improve conviction rates for (a) fraud, (b) money laundering and (c) other financial criminal activity.

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.

Ben Wallace
Secretary of State for Defence
5th Dec 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate the Government has made of the level of money laundering and large-scale fraud made by way of financial transactions and offshore trust funds through the City of London.

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.

Ben Wallace
Secretary of State for Defence
29th Oct 2018
What steps he is taking to improve mental health support for firefighters.

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.

28th Mar 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the potential (a) amount in compensation payments by the Metropolitan Police to the victims of Special Branch officers who communicated with organisations and individuals that blacklisted construction workers, (b) number of recipients of such compensation and (c) amount of each individual payment; and what information her Department holds on the Metropolitan Police accounts from which similar compensation payments have been 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.

28th Mar 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she has received reports of disciplinary action initiated against Special Branch officers communicating with organisations or individuals that blacklisted construction workers.

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.

28th Mar 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether she and her predecessors were briefed by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Special Branch officers communicating with organisations or individuals that blacklisted construction workers.

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.

22nd Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to publish her Department's proposals on repealing or amending Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

The Government intends to publish its intentions about the review of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 shortly.

9th Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress she has made on reducing the number of genetically modified animals bred for experiments but killed as surplus to requirements.

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.

7th Mar 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to Table 1 in her Department's publication, Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2014, HC 511, what aspects of the preservation of the species were the 22 experiments on cats were designed to assist.

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.

26th Feb 2016
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many inspectors appointed under section 18 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are currently in post; what the complement for such inspectors is; how many of the inspectors are former personal or project licence holders; and what the turnover of inspectors so appointed has been over the last three calendar years.

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.

4th Nov 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what procedures her Department has in place to ensure that researchers assessing the expected severity level of animal experiments when applying for project licences do so objectively and thoroughly.

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.

4th Nov 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what procedures her Department has in place to assess at the conclusion of any animal experiment whether the severity level expected by researchers before the experiment corresponded to what the actual severity level was.

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.

3rd Nov 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2014, HC 511, published on 22 October 2015, how many animals of each of the species in that paper were subjected to procedures in establishments in Wales; and what the (a) purpose and (b) level of security was of those procedures.

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.

3rd Nov 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 2014, HC 511, published on 22 October 2015, how many animals of each of the species in that paper were subjected to procedures in establishments in Scotland; and what the (a) purpose and (b) level of security was of those procedures.

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.

10th Jun 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the average number of police officers is per head of population in each police force in England and Wales.

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.

3rd Feb 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Government's strategy for ending female genital mutilation.

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.

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who the members of the project advisory board for the National Union of Students Alcohol Impact initiative are.

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

19th Jun 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what criteria were used to select members of the project advisory board for the National Union of Students Alcohol Impact initiative.

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

19th Oct 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list the occasions on which US nuclear warheads have been transferred to British submarines.

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.

18th Oct 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the purpose was of HMS Vigilant's visit to the USA in September 2017.

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.

12th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral Answer of 10 July 2017, Official Report, column 23, to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, for what reasons it is Government policy that the nuclear ban treaty should not apply to the UK.

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.

12th Jul 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether any environmental remediation to areas contaminated by the testing of British nuclear warheads in (a) the Nevada nuclear test site, (b) Montebello Island, Maralinga and Emu Field, Australia, (c) Malden Island and Kiritimati and (d) any location from which uranium used in the manufacture of nuclear warheads was procured has been carried out.

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.

2nd Feb 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether there will be compulsory redundancies as a result of his Department's site closures.

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.

10th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the Emerging Technology and Innovation Analysis Cell was established; what the annual budget is of that Cell; where that Cell is based; and how many staff that Cell employs.

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.

11th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of business rate rises on the British solar industry; and if he will make a statement.

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.

Marcus Jones
Vice Chamberlain (HM Household) (Whip, House of Commons)
5th Feb 2019
If he will make it his policy to return the probation service to the public sector.

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.

3rd Dec 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals in relation to access rights to grandchildren by grandparents; and if he will make a statement.

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.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
15th Jun 2018
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential risks associated with privatising waking night cover in approved premises.

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.

30th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the effect of changes in tribunal fees in people with protected characteristics.

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.

23rd Jun 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many deaths in custody are under investigation by police as suspected homicide.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
23rd Jun 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have died in each prison in each of the last six months.

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

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Dec 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 13 January 2014, Official Report, column 398W, on electronic tagging, what progress he has made on involving police and crime commissioners in the stakeholder group for offender electronic monitoring technology; and if he will make a statement.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 13 January 2014, Official Report, column 398W, on electronic tagging, what progress he has made on engaging police forces as early adopters of the new arrangements for offender electronic monitoring technology; and if he will make a statement.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to announce a new preferred bidder for the national contract for electronic offender-monitoring technology.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much his Department spent on its contract for offender electronic monitoring in (a) 2011-12, (b) 2012-13 and (c) 2013-14.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the value is of the contract awarded to Capita for the continuation of electronic monitoring contracts on an interim basis.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
10th Sep 2014
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 31 March 2014, to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central, Official Report, column 528W, on electronic tagging, whether the anticipated roll-out of satellite tagging by the end of the year will be on a full or pilot basis.

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.

Andrew Selous
Second Church Estates Commissioner
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to introduce individual case reviews following the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda into magistrates' courts in England and Wales.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to introduce specialisations in magistrates' courts in England and Wales following the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation Agenda.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance he has given magistrates in England and Wales on the introduction of the risk of serious recidivism tool into the National Probation Service following the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation model in England and Wales.

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.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to introduce training for magistrates and legal advisers following the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation Agenda in England and Wales.

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.

5th Sep 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of universal credit on family incomes in Northern Ireland.

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.

James Brokenshire
Minister of State (Home Office)
27th Oct 2015
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on the potential effects of the provisions of the Trade Union Bill in Scotland.

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.

17th Jan 2017
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the steel industry in Wales.

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.