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 question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

61620

	registered interest
	date	12/06/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Army: Recruitment
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	200381
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/06/2014 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 23/06/2014 16:43:56 question first ministerially corrected 01/08/2014 09:48:10 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry previous answer version 4680 answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

90827

	registered interest
	date	05/09/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Warships
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	208441
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/09/2014 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 10/09/2014 13:15:57 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

90826

	registered interest
	date	05/09/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Submarines
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	208440
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/09/2014 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 answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 12/09/2014 13:02:18 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry previous answer version 19384 answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

92170

	registered interest
	date	26/09/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Ministry of Defence Police
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	209763
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 15/10/2014 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 15/10/2014 15:05:50 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

92172

	registered interest
	date	26/09/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	AWE Burghfield
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	209764
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/10/2014 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 16/10/2014 15:03:51 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

101075

	registered interest
	date	27/10/2014
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Airspace
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	212060
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 10/11/2014 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry question first answered 10/11/2014 17:26:43 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry previous answer version 25872 answering member constituency Rayleigh and Wickford answering member printed Mr Mark Francois answering member 1444
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223910

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	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 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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225641
	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 225424 225642 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223912

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	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 assessment he has made of the potential merits of forgiving debt owed by service personnel who applied for accelerated incremental progression.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225642
	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 225424 225641 225643 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

223914

	registered interest
	date	26/02/2015
	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 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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	225643
	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 225424 225641 225642 question first answered 04/03/2015 17:39:09 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson

225985

	registered interest
	date	09/03/2015
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name	Defence
	answering dept sort name	Defence
	hansard heading	Procurement
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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.
	tabling member constituency	Moray
	tabling member printed	Angus Robertson
	uin	226825
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 16/03/2015 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> answering member constituency Broxtowe answering member printed Anna Soubry grouped question UIN 226826 question first answered 16/03/2015 17:44:43 answering member 3938 label Biography information for Anna Soubry
	tabling member	1433 label Biography information for Angus Robertson