Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1385688

registered interest
date	07/12/2021
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Warships: Deployment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the speech by the First Sea Lord on 19 May 2021, what steps he plans to take to double the number of deployable destroyer and frigate days between 2020 and 2030 in the context of the RDEL budget being reduced in the Autumn Budget and Spending Review 2021.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	88656
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer // answer text <p>The Ministry of Defence has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.</p> answering member constituency Wells answering member printed James Heappey question first answered // answering member 4528 label Biography information for James Heappey
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223578

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Joint Cyber Reserve
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answers of 10 December 2014 to Questions 217147 and 217149, for what reasons providing the number of people recruited to the Cyber Reserve may undermine national security.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225462
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>We are significantly growing the number of dedicated Cyber experts in the Ministry of Defence but, like other sensitive Defence capabilities, revealing details such as the number of recruits would indicate capability to our adversaries - possibly helping them to degrade or counter that capability. Recruiting is comfortably on track to deliver the cyber reserve by April 2017.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Canterbury answering member printed Mr Julian Brazier question first answered 04/03/2015 17:33:03 answering member 77 label Biography information for Sir Julian Brazier
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223583

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces: Sikhs
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on what date his Department expects to receive the recommendations of the Chief of the General Staff on whether the British Army should form a Sikh regiment; and what criteria will be used to take a decision on that matter.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225425
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>The Army is committed to recruiting from all sections of society. It is actively engaged with Black, Asian, Minority and Ethnic Groups, including the Sikh community, as well as other groups which represent the demography of the UK and employs a range of measures to maximise its talent and ensure that it better reflects the society from which it recruits.</p><p>Proposals designed to achieve these goals are looked at in detail to establish their feasibility and whether they can be incorporated into its overall engagement strategy. We hope to have this work completed by the summer.</p><p>Of course, we are required to comply with current anti-discrimination legislation whereby the Armed Forces must ensure that service is open to all, regardless of race or religion. The only exception to this is service in the Brigade of Ghurkhas, where this is permitted under the Race Relations Act (now subsumed by the Equalities Act).</p> answering member constituency Canterbury answering member printed Mr Julian Brazier question first answered 04/03/2015 17:34:42 answering member 77 label Biography information for Sir Julian Brazier
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223584

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	77th Brigade: Reserve Forces
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many Reservists have been recruited to the 77th Brigade of the Army; and what target his Department has set for the proportion of that Brigade to be made up of Reservists.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225426
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>As the reorganisation of this formation is taking place, we do not yet have any figures for recruitment but at 1 January 2015, there were 160 members of the Army Reserve (Group A) in the Units that make up the 77th Brigade.</p><p>We intend to expand the number of Reservists to 235, some 53% of the total.</p> answering member constituency Canterbury answering member printed Mr Julian Brazier question first answered 04/03/2015 17:34:06 answering member 77 label Biography information for Sir Julian Brazier
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223579

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, at what rate Accelerated Incremental Progression payments have been made in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225421
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225422 225423 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:08 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223582

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many members of the armed forces have had to repay money as a result of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225424
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225423 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223585

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what method his Department uses to calculate money owed by members of the armed forces as a result of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225422
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225423 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:08 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

223587

registered interest
date	25/02/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	Armed Forces: Pay
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what provisions are in place to ensure that service personnel receive adequate notice when they owe money because of errors in Accelerated Incremental Progression payments.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	225423
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/03/2015 answer text <p>Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.</p><p> </p><p>Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.</p><p> </p><p>If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.</p><p> </p><p>Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services.　In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.</p><p> </p><p>Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.</p><p> </p><p>Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.</p><p> </p><p>Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.</p><p> </p><p>The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 225421 225422 225424 225641 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

225174

registered interest
date	04/03/2015
answering body	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept id	13
answering dept short name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
answering dept sort name	Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
hansard heading	HMS Victory
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the lifting of a cannon from the wreck site of HMS Victory 1744 by Odyssey Marine Exploration formed a part of the Marine Management Organisation investigation into unauthorised work on the HMS Victory 1744 wreck site.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	226362
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/03/2015 answer text <p>The investigation on the HMS Victory 1744 wreck site focused on activities at the wreck site in 2012. Based on the evidence available, it is understood that a cannon was lifted prior to the introduction of the marine licensing system in April 2011 under part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act introduced a requirement to have a licence to remove objects from the sea-bed. Prior to this, under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which concerned the regulation of deposits in the sea, there was no similar provision regarding removal of objects from the seabed.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Camborne and Redruth answering member printed George Eustice question first answered 10/03/2015 11:44:54 answering member 3934 label Biography information for George Eustice
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

225145

registered interest
date	04/03/2015
answering body	Ministry of Defence
answering dept id	11
answering dept short name	Defence
answering dept sort name	Defence
hansard heading	HMS Victory
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department has taken to investigate whether the unauthorised work to excavate the wreck site of HMS Victory 1744 represents a breach of the Deed of Gift for HMS Victory 1744.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	226361
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/03/2015 answer text <p>There has been no excavation at the wreck site of HMS VICTORY 1744 nor artefacts recovered by the Maritime Heritage Foundation or Odyssey Marine Exploration since the Deed of Gift was signed in January 2012. However regular site surveys have been conducted, and reports provided to the Government. There has, therefore, been no breach of the Deed of Gift.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 10/03/2015 16:34:21 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones