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 attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

515189

registered interest
date	25/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Driverless Vehicles: Cybersecurity
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what recent assessment he has made of the cyber security implications of driverless cars.
tabling member constituency	Windsor
tabling member printed	Adam Afriyie
uin	35322
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 03/05/2016 answer text <p>Government recognises that vehicle security is a priority to ensure the safety and security of the public and their data.</p><p>Government believes connected and autonomous vehicles should be “secure by design” and handle data appropriately. We are working closely with industry to achieve these aims as part of a wider programme of activity to ensure that the significant opportunities of these technologies can be realised safely and securely.</p><p>Connected technologies present cyber security challenges across a range of sectors. Cyber security has been identified as a key priority in the latest National Security Strategy. The Government has announced the formation of a National Cyber Security Centre, which will bring together the UK’s cyber expertise from different parts of Government into one organisation. The Government will also publish a new National Cyber Security Strategy later this year.</p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 03/05/2016 15:12:10 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1586 label Biography information for Adam Afriyie

514928

registered interest
date	22/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Defence: Procurement
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on ensuring that Ministry of Defence contracts with suppliers and manufacturers benefit the UK economy.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	35183
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2016 answer text <p>My Rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has regular discussions with my Rt hon Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on a wide variety of issues. My department supports the Government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), published last November, which set out the Government’s commitment to get the best value for money for the taxpayer in a way that strengthens our economy and bolsters the long-term prosperity of people across the UK. The SDSR committed the Government to refreshing its defence industrial policy and taking further action to help the UK’s defence industry grow and compete successfully and my department is engaging MOD on taking this work forward.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 27/04/2016 15:27:49 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

514929

registered interest
date	22/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Aerospace Industry: South West
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps his Department is taking to sustain aerospace engineering capability and capacity in the South West region.
tabling member constituency	North Durham
tabling member printed	Mr Kevan Jones
uin	35185
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 27/04/2016 answer text <p>We work closely with aerospace companies and their representative organisations, in particular the West of England Aerospace Forum (WEAF), in the South West through the Aerospace Growth Partnership (AGP) to tackle barriers to growth, boost exports and grow high value jobs. As part of this work we are investing heavily in the sector to support the industry’s private investment in technology, competitiveness and productivity, manufacturing capability and skills.</p><p> </p><p>The work of the AGP includes businesses of all sizes in the South West region including large players such as Airbus, Finmeccanica Helicopters, GE Aviation, GKN, Rolls-Royce, Safran Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, UTC Aerospace Systems, as well as their many medium and small sized suppliers, and other specialist aerospace businesses.</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 27/04/2016 15:52:08 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
tabling member	1438 label Biography information for Mr Kevan Jones

515033

registered interest
date	22/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have chosen not to implement provisions relating to joint audit and increased tendering as set out in EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing.
tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
uin	HL7853
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>The Government does intend to implement provisions relating to increased tendering as part of the implementation of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive. This is in line with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).</p><p>The provision on joint audit in the EU Regulation would act as an exemption from having to retender with the frequency envisaged by the CMA. The government consulted on the implementation of the audit directive including this option, and concluded the option should not be taken up.</p><p>Joint audit is not a practice followed in the UK, though it is expressly permitted by the Companies and legislation on some other entities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted on whether to take up this derogation. In response to our discussion document in December 2014 on auditor regulation, only 4 of 25 respondents supported its implementation.</p><p>It is unclear that increased joint audit would encourage competition. The option in the EU Regulation could result in prolonged audit engagements (up to 24 years) and fewer changes in auditor. This would be contrary to the objective of the CMA and the Regulation, which is to increase retendering and rotation of auditors not less.</p><p>The CMA considered the impact of joint audits on competition and concluded that promoting joint audits would have little effect on barriers to entry, expansion and selection. The CMA’s conclusions were based on views provided by a range of stakeholders. The CMA was not able to quantify the potential cost of imposing joint audits, but did state that they believed that across the market the costs would be potentially significant. They state that a lot of weight was placed on the views of investors, who were almost universally opposed to joint audits on the grounds of additional costs and risks to audit quality.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7854 HL7855 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

515034

registered interest
date	22/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing, what assessment they have made of the impact of implementing the provisions relating to joint audit on the creation of a more competitive market and limiting market dominance by the largest professional services networks.
tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
uin	HL7854
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>The Government does intend to implement provisions relating to increased tendering as part of the implementation of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive. This is in line with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).</p><p>The provision on joint audit in the EU Regulation would act as an exemption from having to retender with the frequency envisaged by the CMA. The government consulted on the implementation of the audit directive including this option, and concluded the option should not be taken up.</p><p>Joint audit is not a practice followed in the UK, though it is expressly permitted by the Companies and legislation on some other entities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted on whether to take up this derogation. In response to our discussion document in December 2014 on auditor regulation, only 4 of 25 respondents supported its implementation.</p><p>It is unclear that increased joint audit would encourage competition. The option in the EU Regulation could result in prolonged audit engagements (up to 24 years) and fewer changes in auditor. This would be contrary to the objective of the CMA and the Regulation, which is to increase retendering and rotation of auditors not less.</p><p>The CMA considered the impact of joint audits on competition and concluded that promoting joint audits would have little effect on barriers to entry, expansion and selection. The CMA’s conclusions were based on views provided by a range of stakeholders. The CMA was not able to quantify the potential cost of imposing joint audits, but did state that they believed that across the market the costs would be potentially significant. They state that a lot of weight was placed on the views of investors, who were almost universally opposed to joint audits on the grounds of additional costs and risks to audit quality.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7853 HL7855 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

515035

registered interest
date	22/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Audit: EU Law
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of EU Directive 2014/56/EU and Regulation 537/2014 on statutory auditing, what assessment they have made of the potential impact of joint audit on levels of competition across the UK auditing sector.
tabling member printed	Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
uin	HL7855
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/05/2016 answer text <p>The Government does intend to implement provisions relating to increased tendering as part of the implementation of the EU Audit Regulation and Directive. This is in line with the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).</p><p>The provision on joint audit in the EU Regulation would act as an exemption from having to retender with the frequency envisaged by the CMA. The government consulted on the implementation of the audit directive including this option, and concluded the option should not be taken up.</p><p>Joint audit is not a practice followed in the UK, though it is expressly permitted by the Companies and legislation on some other entities. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has consulted on whether to take up this derogation. In response to our discussion document in December 2014 on auditor regulation, only 4 of 25 respondents supported its implementation.</p><p>It is unclear that increased joint audit would encourage competition. The option in the EU Regulation could result in prolonged audit engagements (up to 24 years) and fewer changes in auditor. This would be contrary to the objective of the CMA and the Regulation, which is to increase retendering and rotation of auditors not less.</p><p>The CMA considered the impact of joint audits on competition and concluded that promoting joint audits would have little effect on barriers to entry, expansion and selection. The CMA’s conclusions were based on views provided by a range of stakeholders. The CMA was not able to quantify the potential cost of imposing joint audits, but did state that they believed that across the market the costs would be potentially significant. They state that a lot of weight was placed on the views of investors, who were almost universally opposed to joint audits on the grounds of additional costs and risks to audit quality.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7853 HL7854 question first answered 09/05/2016 12:43:28 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	384 label Biography information for Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

514703

registered interest
date	21/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: Civil Servants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many civil servants were employed at each location at (a) Business, Innovation and Skills Core, (b) the Office for Fair Access, (c) the Higher Education Funding Council for England, (d) the Financial Reporting Council, (e) the Green Investment Bank, (f) the UK Commission on Employment and Skills and (g) the British Business Bank in the last year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield, Heeley
tabling member printed	Louise Haigh
uin	35017
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 26/04/2016 answer text <p>The number of civil servants that were employed by the (a) Department Business, Innovation and Skills at each location as at 31 December 2015 are shown on the attached table.</p><p> </p><p>There are no civil servants employed by (b) the Office for Fair Access, (c) the Higher Education Funding Council for England, (d) the Financial Reporting Council, (e) the Green Investment Bank, (f) the UK Commission on Employment and Skills or (g) the British Business Bank. All people employed by those organisations are public servants. The number of those and their locations is also shown on the attached table.</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency Orpington answering member printed Joseph Johnson question first answered 26/04/2016 14:45:11 answering member 4039 label Biography information for Lord Johnson of Marylebone attachment 1 file name Attachment to 35017.xlsx title Attachment to 35017
tabling member	4473 label Biography information for Louise Haigh

514704

registered interest
date	21/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Innovate UK: Civil Servants
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many civil servants were employed at each location by Innovate UK in the last year for which figures are available.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield, Heeley
tabling member printed	Louise Haigh
uin	35011
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 25/04/2016 answer text <p>There no civil servants employed by Innovate UK.</p><p>People employed in Innovate UK are public servants and as at 31 December 2015 they were located as shown in the table below.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Location</p></td><td><p>Region</p></td><td><p>Innovate UK</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Swindon</p></td><td><p>South West</p></td><td><p>180</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Other (inc. Work from home, Field work, Mobile, etc.)</p></td><td><p>Mobile</p></td><td><p>126</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>Total</p></td><td><p>306</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency Orpington answering member printed Joseph Johnson question first answered 25/04/2016 14:01:26 answering member 4039 label Biography information for Lord Johnson of Marylebone
tabling member	4473 label Biography information for Louise Haigh

514706

registered interest
date	21/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Minimum Wage
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to his oral contribution of 18 April 2016, Official Report, column 712, on the national minimum wage, how many of the employers who approached his Department and requested not to be named and shamed for breaking national minimum legislation were named and shamed.
tabling member constituency	Cardiff West
tabling member printed	Kevin Brennan
uin	35040
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/04/2016 answer text <p>Since the naming scheme began we have named 490 employers and received 107 representations from employers asking not to be named. Of these 107 employers 85 were ultimately named.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 29/04/2016 13:45:33 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles previous answer version 57685 answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	1400 label Biography information for Kevin Brennan

514707

registered interest
date	21/04/2016
answering body	Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept id	26
answering dept short name	Business, Innovation and Skills
answering dept sort name	Business, Innovation and Skills
hansard heading	Minimum Wage
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to his oral contribution of 18 April 2016, Official Report, column 712, on the national minimum wage, what correspondence his Department has received from employers asking not to be named and shamed for breach of the legislation in each year since that approach was implemented.
tabling member constituency	Cardiff West
tabling member printed	Kevin Brennan
uin	35041
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/04/2016 answer text <p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Since the naming scheme began we have received 107 representations from employers asking not to be named: 1 in 2013, 35 in 2014 and 71 in 2015.</p><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles question first answered 29/04/2016 13:39:39 answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles previous answer version 57687 answering member constituency Grantham and Stamford answering member printed Nick Boles answering member 3995 label Biography information for Nick Boles
tabling member	1400 label Biography information for Kevin Brennan