Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

61620
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-06-12more like thisremove minimum value filter
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Army: Recruitment more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will estimate the (a) monthly and (b) total additional cost to date for paying Capita as if it was meeting quantity and quality standards for recruitments in the Recruiting Partnering Project. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 200381 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction true more like this
date of answer less than 2014-06-23more like thismore than 2014-06-23
answer text <p>Between its launch in March 2012 to 31 March 2014, the Army has paid Capita £100.380 million for the Recruiting Partnering Project. The Recruiting Partnering Project remains within the overall agreed cost of £1.360 <ins class="ministerial">billion. </ins><del class="ministerial">million.</del><br /><br />My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Philip Hammond) set out on 14 January 2014 the cost of Capita providing a new Information Technology platform as part of the Recruiting Partnering Project (Official Report: column 716). At the time, these costs were expected to be around £47.7 million directly linked to the change of hosting provision. Since this statement, these costs have reduced to around £42.9 million. <br /><br />As previously stated by the Secretary of State on 14 January, there has been an additional cost of around £1 million per month to run the Capita system. This includes costs for additional manpower.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-06-23T16:43:56.43Zmore like thismore than 2014-06-23T16:43:56.43Z
question first ministerially corrected
less than 2014-08-01T09:48:10.9953114Zmore like thismore than 2014-08-01T09:48:10.9953114Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
previous answer version
4680
answering member constituency Broxtowe more like this
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
90827
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-09-05more like thismore than 2014-09-05
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Warships more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the standard length was of deployment for service personnel aboard (a) frigates and (b) destroyers in 2012; and what the standard length of such deployments is at present. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 208441 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-09-10more like thismore than 2014-09-10
answer text <p>In 2012, the average length of deployment for both Destroyers and Frigates was seven months. Currently, deployments are between seven and seven and a half months.<br><br>From early 2015, the Royal Navy will introduce nine-month deployments for those Destroyers and Frigates undertaking patrol tasks in the South Atlantic and the Gulf. The move to longer deployments will mean fewer generation cycles; fewer deployments in the longer term; less disruption, and a better ability for individuals and families to plan. A package of additional benefits will be in place for personnel: two weeks' pre-deployment leave; two weeks' leave at the mid point of their deployment, and four or five weeks' leave on their return, depending on which main leave period this falls in. It is planned that other deployments will remain between seven and seven and a half months.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-09-10T13:15:57.4634377Zmore like thismore than 2014-09-10T13:15:57.4634377Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
90826
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-09-05more like thismore than 2014-09-05
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Submarines more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many suitably qualified and experienced personnel staff are currently required and how many such positions are vacant in (a) Astute, (b) Vanguard and (c) Trafalgar class submarine crews. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 208440 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-09-12more like thismore than 2014-09-12
answer text <p> </p><p>The information requested, as at 8 September 2014, is shown in the following table:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p>REQUIRED POSITIONS</p><p>(LIABILITY)</p></td><td><p>VACANT POSITIONS</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>A Class (Astute, Ambush only)</p></td><td><p>280</p></td><td><p>25</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>T Class (Torbay, Trenchant, Talent, Triumph only)</p></td><td><p>620</p></td><td><p>65</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>V Class (Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant only)</p></td><td><p>1,080</p></td><td><p>120</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><p>Note: All figures are rounded in accordance with the Defence Statistics rounding policy. All numbers over 100 are rounded to the nearest 10 with numbers ending in 5 rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to avoid bias. Numbers under 100 are rounded to the nearest 5.</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>None of the existing vacancies is in a post categorised as safety critical and no submarine would go to sea without the minimum required complement of suitably qualified and experienced personnel.</p>
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-09-12T13:02:18.1796139Zmore like thismore than 2014-09-12T13:02:18.1796139Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
previous answer version
19384
answering member constituency Broxtowe more like this
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
92170
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-09-26more like thismore than 2014-09-26
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Ministry of Defence Police more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what proportion of posts at the Ministry of Defence Police complement at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield, are currently vacant. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 209763 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-10-15more like thismore than 2014-10-15
answer text <p>I am withholding information about vacant Ministry of Defence Police posts at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield, for the purposes of safeguarding national security.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-10-15T15:05:50.1142184Zmore like thismore than 2014-10-15T15:05:50.1142184Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
92172
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-09-26more like thismore than 2014-09-26
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading AWE Burghfield more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 22 January 2014, Official Report, column 222W, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, what the conclusions and recommendations are of the investigation into shortfalls in policing standards and neglect of duties at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the investigation. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 209764 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-10-16more like thismore than 2014-10-16
answer text <p>The Misconduct process in respect of allegations that a number of Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) officers failed to complete their duties correctly at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Burghfield continues. Any immediate issues of concern identified have now been addressed by the MDP and further matters picked up during the ongoing disciplinary process will be actioned. A report will be prepared by the Chief Constable when the disciplinary process has completed.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-10-16T15:03:51.5391111Zmore like thismore than 2014-10-16T15:03:51.5391111Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
101075
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2014-10-27more like thismore than 2014-10-27
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Air Space more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if two non-cooperating aircraft operating in the same Class G airspace at the same time can be regarded as a Risk to Life. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 212060 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-11-10more like thismore than 2014-11-10
answer text <p>The appropriate military Duty Holder for each aircraft fleet is required to undertake a Risk to Life assessment at quarterly intervals. One of the risks considered is that of mid air collision with non-cooperating aircraft. This includes in uncontrolled airspace away from airfields, airports and the airways system (Class G airspace). Following this assessment, the Duty Holder is required to put in place appropriate controls and mitigating measures to ensure that any potential risk is both tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable.</p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-11-10T17:26:43.522474Zmore like thismore than 2014-11-10T17:26:43.522474Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
previous answer version
25872
answering member constituency Rayleigh and Wickford more like this
answering member printed Mr Mark Francois more like this
answering member 1444
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
223910
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-26more like thismore than 2015-02-26
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Armed Forces: Pay more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many service personnel have been overpaid after they applied for accelerated incremental progression payments; how much has been overpaid; how much will have to be paid back by service personnel; what the average amount to be repaid by a serviceman or woman is; and by what date such repayments must be made. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 225641 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-04more like thismore than 2015-03-04
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 remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
grouped question UIN
225421 more like this
225422 more like this
225423 more like this
225424 more like this
225642 more like this
225643 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.277Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.277Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
223912
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-26more like thismore than 2015-02-26
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Armed Forces: Pay more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of forgiving debt owed by service personnel who applied for accelerated incremental progression. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 225642 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-04more like thismore than 2015-03-04
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 remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
grouped question UIN
225421 more like this
225422 more like this
225423 more like this
225424 more like this
225641 more like this
225643 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.39Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.39Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
223914
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-02-26more like thismore than 2015-02-26
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Armed Forces: Pay more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what information his Department has given to service personnel who have been overpaid because they applied for an accelerated incremental progression; when the guidelines for who was eligible for such payments were changed to invalidate the extra pay; how many people applied for such payments before the guidance in Joint Service Publication 754 was changed; and who was responsible for changing that guidance. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 225643 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-04more like thismore than 2015-03-04
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 remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
grouped question UIN
225421 more like this
225422 more like this
225423 more like this
225424 more like this
225641 more like this
225642 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.57Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-04T17:39:09.57Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this
225985
registered interest false more like this
date less than 2015-03-09more like thismore than 2015-03-09
answering body
Ministry of Defence more like this
answering dept id 11 more like this
answering dept short name Defence more like this
answering dept sort name Defence more like this
hansard heading Procurement more like this
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will estimate (a) how much will be spent on the next generation estate contract for regional prime Scotland and Northern Ireland in each of the next four years and (b) how much of that amount will be spent with sub-contractors based in Scotland in each of those years; and what steps he has taken to ensure that local businesses benefit from those contracts. more like this
tabling member constituency Moray more like this
tabling member printed
Angus Robertson remove filter
uin 226825 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2015-03-16more like thismore than 2015-03-16
answer text <p>The amount that will be spent on the next generation estate contracts in Scotland and Northern Ireland in each of the next four financial years (FY) is shown below:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td>FY 2014-15</td><td>£19.6 million</td></tr><tr><td>FY 2015-16</td><td>£17 million</td></tr><tr><td>FY 2016-17</td><td>£17.3 million</td></tr><tr><td>FY 2017-18</td><td>£17.7 million</td></tr><tr><td>FY 2018-19</td><td>£18.1 million</td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p>The information in relation to the amount spent on subcontractors in Scotland, the steps to ensure local businesses benefit from the contracts or the number of construction companies based in Scotland to have been awarded work is not held in the format requested.</p><p> </p> more like this
answering member constituency Broxtowe remove filter
answering member printed Anna Soubry more like this
grouped question UIN 226826 more like this
question first answered
less than 2015-03-16T17:44:43.49Zmore like thismore than 2015-03-16T17:44:43.49Z
answering member
3938
label Biography information for Anna Soubry more like this
tabling member
1433
label Biography information for Angus Robertson more like this