Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what funding his Department plans to make available to the Office for Nuclear Regulation to enable it to take responsibility for the nuclear safeguarding role currently undertaken by Eurtatom.
Answered by Lord Harrington of Watford
The Department will allocate to the Office for Nuclear Regulation the funding necessary to set up a domestic civil nuclear safeguards regime.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether his Department has undertaken an impact assessment of the cost to the public purse of the UK leaving Euratom.
Answered by Lord Harrington of Watford
The nature of future arrangements with Euratom and the EU will be subject to negotiation. The scope of these arrangements will determine the impact. Our aim throughout the negotiations with the European Commission will be to maintain our mutually successful civil nuclear cooperation with Euratom and the rest of the world.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether the UK will contribute to the development of Framework Programme 9 before it leaves the EU.
Answered by Lord Johnson of Marylebone
The UK is keen to engage positively and productively in the discussions around FP9. The Government has made clear our interest in continued collaboration with EU partners on research and innovation. We look forward to continuing discussions with the Commission and all other interested parties.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, if he will place in the Library copies of written evidence submitted to the Taylor review of modern working practices published on 11 July 2017.
Answered by Margot James
Copies of the written submissions submitted to the Review will be published on the Gov.uk website in due course.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many meetings were held by officials of his Department on the Taylor review of modern working practices between 30 November 2016 and 11 July 2017.
Answered by Margot James
Officials in the Department met a number of business organisations and businesses, trade unions and worker representative groups, academics and third sector organisations in the course of the Review. They also met officials from other Government Departments. We are unable to quantify how meetings were held in total.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what the cost to the public purse was of the Taylor review of modern working practices.
Answered by Margot James
The total calculable cost of the Review was £73,724.45. This figure includes the cost of the Review Chair’s time, travel expenses for the Chair and expert panel members, costs of regional events and the cost of design and printing the report.
In addition to the costs set out above, a number of Government policy officials, lawyers and analysts from a number of Government departments worked on this Review and these costs were met from existing departmental budgets.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September 2017 to Question 7790, what proportion of social care employers found to be non-complaint with the minimum wage have failed to meet the minimum criteria for naming under his Department's naming scheme.
Answered by Margot James
Of the 183 care sector employers found not to have complied with the National Minimum Wage regulations;
74 met the minimum criteria of the naming scheme and have been named so far. This number will change as cases are considered as part of future naming rounds.
34 employers had arrears less than £100 and are therefore not eligible for naming.
2 employers met the exceptional criteria and have not been named.
Of the remaining cases, 69 will not be considered for naming as (a) the arrears in the cases were identified solely via self-correction or (b) the case was opened by HMRC before the revised scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013.
The remaining cases will be considered in future rounds.
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with reference to the letter of 6 April 2017 from Jon Thompson, Chief Executive HM Revenue and Customs, to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, how many of the care sector employers involved in the 183 cases between 1 February 2015 and 30 September 2016 of non-compliance with the national minimum wage have been named and shamed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Margot James
Of the 183 care sector employers found not to have complied with the National Minimum Wage regulations, 74 met the minimum criteria of the naming scheme and have been named to date. This number will change as cases are considered as part of future naming rounds.
Under the scheme, employers whose arrears do not exceed the £100 threshold are not eligible for naming. In addition, cases opened by HMRC before the revised scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013 are not eligible for naming under the current criteria. Information on the naming scheme policy is published here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632656/national-minimum-wage-enforcement-policy-july-2017.pdf:
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what proportion of care sector companies that do not pay the national minimum wage have been named and shamed by his Department since it began publicly identifying non-compliant employers; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Margot James
Since the introduction of the revised National Minimum Wage naming scheme in 2013, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has named over 1,200 employers; over 70 of those employers were from the care sector.
The vast majority of employers (over 95%) who meet the minimum criteria for naming under the scheme are ultimately named. Information on the naming scheme policy is published here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632656/national-minimum-wage-enforcement-policy-july-2017.pdf
Asked by: Paul Blomfield (Labour - Sheffield Central)
Question to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whether he plans to respond to the recommendation in the Low Pay Commission Report 2015 that payslips of hourly-paid staff states the hours individuals are being paid for; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Margot James
Following the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation, the Government is engaging with stakeholders to evaluate the proposal in detail, including how it is practically implemented. We will consider the recommendation in the light of this evidence and make a formal response to the Low Pay Commission in the Autumn.