The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Manzoor on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) women, and (2) men, had jobs paid below £10,000 per annum in (a) 2013–14, and (b) 2014–15.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Manzoor on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) women, and (2) men, worked in part-time jobs in (a) 2013–14, and (b) 2014–15.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the Authority to reply.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many publicly owned or charity owned houses have been sold to their tenants in each of the last five years.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Statistics on the number of social dwellings sold by local authorities and private registered providers can be found in Live Table 678, which is too large to be included here but has been attached and can also be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-social-housing-sales
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many bat bridges over roads (1) have been completed in each of the last five years, (2) are under construction, and (3) are planned; and what is the (a) location, and (b) actual or budgeted cost of each.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
One Highways England scheme has provided bat crossings as part of its construction during the last five years, and that is the A11 Fiveways to Thetford improvement scheme. Six crossings have been completed at a cost of £354,000.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are used (1) to determine the cost-effectiveness of bat bridges before construction is undertaken, and (2) to determine the value of those constructed.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
All elements of road schemes are subject to appraisal in line with Treasury requirements and guidance. They are also subject to value management requirements throughout the project lifecycle.
This does not include any specific measures on the cost-effectiveness of structures, such as bat bridges, as there is no accepted method for such quantatative evaluation. Instead a review is undertaken of the costs, qualitative benefits and other predicted impacts (including environmental) at key stages to ensure benefits are optimised and costs are challenged.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment the Highways Agency has made of the standard of cleanliness of the junction between the M25 motorway and the A12 trunk road.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), Highways England is responsible for litter clearance on all England’s motorways and a few selected A roads for specific operational reasons. Local authorities are responsible for litter on all local roads, including the vast majority A roads on the strategic road network.
The M25 junction with the A12 trunk road (junction 28), is maintained by both Highways England and Transport for London. Transport for London is responsible for litter clearance of the A12 from junction 28 towards London and Brentwood Borough Council is responsible for Junction 28 towards Brentwood.
A litter inspection of junction 28 was completed by Highways England on 21 April 2016 which identified ‘widespread distributions of litter with minor accumulations’ (Grade C under the EPA Code of Practice). This location was then cleared of litter on 26 April. The junction will continue to be regularly monitored and re-picked as the need arises.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Marlesford on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what academic studies have been conducted into the financial case for bat bridges over roads, and what assessment they have made of the conclusions of those studies.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Highways England are not aware of any studies conducted into the financial case for bat bridges. Work in 2015 undertaken by Leeds University, on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), did look at the effectiveness of bat bridges.
Highways England have reviewed the study and met with Natural England and DEFRA to discuss the conclusions of the report.
While the conclusions of the Leeds University work are based on limited sample size, the authors conclude that the effectiveness of crossing structures increases with their size, connectivity and similarity to natural features. They also conclude that wire bat bridges do not provide effective mitigation.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of how the carbon emissions of waste-fed anaerobic digestion plants compare to those of plants fed by energy crops.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The carbon emissions from anaerobic digestion (AD) plants have been assessed by adding together; the greenhouse gas emissions from the AD plant including an estimate of their methane leakage rate, the reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions from the use of biomethane to substitute for natural gas in the gas grid, and where this is relevant, the emissions avoided by no longer needing to dispose of the feedstock. The estimates below are for typical plants and will depend on particular circumstances.
For food waste this net change in greenhouse gas emissions was assessed as a saving of 850 g of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour of energy in the biomethane produced (g CO2eq /kWh). This arises principally from the reduction in emissions from the landfilling of food waste. Animal waste based AD plant save emissions of 704 g CO2eq /kWh as a result of the reduction in storage emissions of slurries and manures. The use of annual energy crops for AD was assessed as saving 102 g CO2eq /kWh.
The assumptions behind this assessment are detailed in the Impact Assessment that accompanied the recent consultation ‘The Renewable Heat Incentive: A reformed and refocused scheme’ and did not taken account of any additional carbon emissions impacts relating to indirect land use change, which may arise from changes in agricultural land caused by the expansion of croplands for feedstock production.
This evidence was drawn from the modelling that supported the Impact Assessment for the recent Renewable Heat Incentive consultation that closed on 27th April.
Food waste is estimated to be considerably more cost-effective than agricultural feedstocks because of the ‘upstream’ emissions abatement that is assumed to occur as a result of diverting food waste from landfill to an anaerobic digester. This is despite the controls that are in place at landfill sites to collect and combust landfill gas.
Agricultural wastes are also assumed to produce upstream emission abatement owing largely to avoided emissions from the storage of slurries and manures, although these are less significant than the upstream abatement from food waste. In contrast energy crops do not offer these GHG emission reduction advantages.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the positive findings of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs research Digestate and Compost in Agriculture, what action they are taking to increase the volume of food waste going to anaerobic digesters rather than to incinerators.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
It is wrong for good surplus food to go to waste when it could go to people. For food waste which is unavoidable and inedible, anaerobic digestion is the most environmentally beneficial means of dealing with it.
The Waste Framework Directive sets out a priority order for waste treatment: the waste hierarchy. We have departed from the waste hierarchy to place anaerobic digestion above – rather than on a par with – composting and other energy recovery technologies for the treatment of food and garden wastes. We explain this position in our “Guidance on applying the waste hierarchy”. While local authorities are best placed to determine local collection arrangements, they must have regard to this guidance.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has recently published guidance to local authorities on how to introduce or improve the effectiveness of food waste collection systems. WRAP is also looking at whether greater consistency in how waste is collected has the potential to improve recycling rates.
The “Food Waste Recycling Action Plan”, soon to be published by WRAP, aims to bring together industry and local authorities to increase the supply and quality of household and commercial food waste to the food waste recycling industry.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer on 2016-04-28.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to take further action to encourage local authorities to accelerate the rate at which they require households to separate food waste from domestic rubbish.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has recently published an updated household food waste collections guide. The guide is aimed at local authorities planning to introduce a new food waste collection scheme. It also provides advice to local authorities who wish to increase participation in their existing schemes. WRAP is also looking at whether greater consistency in how waste is collected has the potential to improve recycling rates.
The “Food Waste Recycling Action Plan”, soon to be published by WRAP, aims to bring together industry and local authorities to increase the supply and quality of household and commercial food waste to the food waste recycling industry.