The below Parliamentary question was asked by Grahame Morris on 2015-10-26.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the opinion of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee on CCTV in slaughterhouses, published in February 2015.
George Eustice
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Rt. Hon. Member for Knowsley, George Howarth on 24 June 2015, PQs UIN 2944 and 2945.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Browne of Belmont on 2015-10-23.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of paramilitary-linked organised crime in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dunlop
The assessment of the structure, roles and purpose of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, published on 20 October stated that individual members of paramilitary groups are involved in ‘serious criminal activity’. Examples cited in the assessment include: ‘large scale smuggling operations, fuel laundering, drug dealing and extortion of local businesses’.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2015-10-23.
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what (a) funding his Department is undertaking and (b) projects his Department has planned as part of the Government’s Digital Inclusion Strategy.
Nick Boles
a) The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) currently funds a programme through the Tinder Foundation with the aim of equipping up to 1m adults with the basic digital skills, motivation and confidence to go online, be digitally capable and to be safe online. The contract was awarded by open competitive tender in October 2014 and has a maximum value of £15m. This addresses Action 2 of the Digital Inclusion Strategy 2014 (to establish a quality cross-government digital capability programme).
In addition the adult skills budget managed by the Skills Funding Agency continues to support learners to increase skills, competence and knowledge including basic digital skills and capabilities as called for under Action 1 of the Strategy.
b) There are no other projects currently planned.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2014-02-27.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 200W, on IT: education, with which groups and organisations his Department has engaged to support the Year of the Code; and what support his Department has so provided.
Mr Nick Hurd
Cabinet Office is engaging with groups including e-skills UK, the Sector Skills Council for Business and Information Technology. This builds on ongoing work across Government to build links with schools, universities and employers.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Suttie on 2014-02-25.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage women to apply for senior posts in the Civil Service.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Women comprise over a third of the Senior Civil Service.
Work commissioned through the Contestable Policy Fund begins in March and will identify and help to remove the blockages faced by women when applying for senior posts.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-02-13.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will place in the Library a copy of the report entitled The medical implications of vehicle-mounted water cannon with special reference to the Ziegler Wasserwerfer 9000 (WaWe 9) system, published by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in 2013.
Damian Green
The report will be placed in the Library when the Home Secretary announces her
decision on whether to authorise water cannon for use by the police in England
and Wales.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Clive Betts on 2014-01-23.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many households in England received a weekly general, all-purpose, rubbish collection service in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.
Brandon Lewis
Labour’s legacy
The last Labour Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections and hitting hard-working families with new bin charges.Their ‘Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme’ advocated “collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”, and sought to “nationalise this policy among local authorities”. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with the zeal of a convert.
Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules; further legislation in 2008 watered down councils’ legal duties to collect rubbish. Guidance issued in 2005 advised town halls that councillors should be bullied to stop them opposing the axing of collections or proposing to restore weekly collections. It also recommended that cutting collections should be done after local elections – to avoid the nuisance of democratic opposition. The Government funded the covert imposition of “bin brother” microchips into families’ bins. The 2009 Pre-Budget Report made clear that a further wave of bin cuts were being planned. In short, the “Town Hall Talibin” doubled council tax and halved bin collections.
We disagree. This Government believes that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the £122 a month in council tax that a typical household pays (Band D), especially given the typical refuse collection service only costs councils £6 to £7 per month to provide.
What we’ve done
We have taken a series of steps to help households:
· Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling;
· Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide).
· Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;
· Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;
· Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;
· Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice;
· Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement);
· Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;
· Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;
· Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;
· Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;
· Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from “Binquisition” inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;
· Changing building regulations to tackle ‘bin blight’; and
· Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.
In short, this has been a fundamentally different approach from the Labour Government: we are working with families to help them go green, but believe in proper, regular and comprehensive collections for taxpaying households.
The configuration of services is complex. The table below, based on available estimates from WRAP, provide the most detailed information held on the breakdown of refuse and recycling collections of ‘smelly’ rubbish across councils in England.
Weekly collections of smelly rubbish
|
Councils |
Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste |
Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste |
Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste |
Weekly Residual and no separate food waste collection |
Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual |
Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual |
|
Jun-11 |
33 |
11 |
19 |
189 |
45 |
7 |
|
Nov-11 |
31 |
9 |
20 |
190 |
52 |
10 |
|
Jan-12 |
33 |
8 |
20 |
189 |
54 |
11 |
|
Feb-12 |
33 |
8 |
17 |
182 |
58 |
11 |
|
Aug-12 |
39 |
8 |
21 |
181 |
61 |
12 |
|
Sep-12 |
39 |
8 |
20 |
179 |
62 |
12 |
|
Households |
Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste |
Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste |
Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste |
Weekly collection and no separate food waste collection |
Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual |
Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual |
|
Jun-11 |
1,296,296 |
405,719 |
718,292 |
10,480,876 |
1,750,654 |
353,001 |
|
Nov-11 |
1,079,984 |
479,151 |
998,017 |
9,694,524 |
2,197,166 |
542,695 |
|
Jan-12 |
1,141,584 |
441,151 |
998,017 |
9,341,759 |
2,426,531 |
602,695 |
|
Feb-12 |
1,124,040 |
441,151 |
861,447 |
9,064,454 |
2,571,575 |
602,695 |
|
Aug-12 |
1,378,876 |
440,812 |
851,915 |
8,239,673 |
2,896,107 |
747,024 |
|
Sep-12 |
1,386,876 |
440,812 |
747,915 |
7,885,321 |
2,981,513 |
747,024 |
Fortnightly collections
|
Councils |
Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual |
Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection |
|
Jun-11 |
36 |
143 |
|
Nov-11 |
41 |
142 |
|
Jan-12 |
41 |
144 |
|
Feb-12 |
44 |
149 |
|
Aug-12 |
47 |
145 |
|
Sep-12 |
49 |
147 |
|
Households |
Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual |
Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection |
|
Jun-11 |
1,668,211 |
5,879,808 |
|
Nov-11 |
1,838,632 |
6,014,336 |
|
Jan-12 |
1,860,532 |
6,032,245 |
|
Feb-12 |
2,034,102 |
6,145,050 |
|
Aug-12 |
2,170,143 |
6,173,402 |
|
Sep-12 |
2,319,143 |
6,389,348 |
Note: Some councils may have a combination of the categories in the table below and have been counted under each one that they provide.
This shows that 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish. Had the Government not taken the actions it had, weekly collections would have disappeared in England by 2015. This simple assertion can be illustrated by the extinction of weekly collections in most of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved Administrations and policies of supporting fortnightly bin collections. Indeed, in Wales, the Labour-led Welsh Government now has a policy of supporting monthly bin collections (Welsh Government, Municipal Sector Plan Part 1, March 2011 and Welsh Government, Cabinet decision, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, Additional Funding for Zero Waste Gurnos, February 2012).
We have stopped the rot, but there is more to do to support weekly bin collections. Many town hall jobsworths, over-zealous NGOs and vested interests in the waste industry remain blindly obsessed with restricting bin collections as a perverse policy goal in itself, and this is reflected in the figures in the table above. Indeed, even Keep Britain Tidy – which one would think would want regular rubbish collections to keep the streets clean – has been taken over by a NGO (Waste Watch) which campaigns for fortnightly bin collections. Bin collections are not viewed as a public service – but as a policy tool to deliver other arbitrary policy goals.
More to do
One option which should be considered is a minimum service standard – for example, the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 already lays down minimum service requirements for recycling, and indeed, the Public Health Act 1875 introduced a duty on local authorities to collect rubbish; this duty was enhanced by the Public Health Act 1936 obliging them to collect household waste weekly which existed until 1974.
Moving forward, we are open to representations on how best to support frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service; stand up for taxpayers’ interests from arbitrary state charges and taxes; and protect the local environment, public health and local amenity from the nuisance of stinking rubbish.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2013-06-25.
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what powers and freedoms relating to (a) skills and employment, (b) housing and (c) economic development have been devolved since May 2010 to (i) local government and (ii) local enterprise partnerships.
Kris Hopkins
[Holding Reply: Monday 1 July 2013]
The Government is taking considerable steps to devolve power and freedom to local government and Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Through the Localism Act, councils now have the general power of competence that enables them to do anything that an individual might do, apart from that which is specifically prohibited. In addition we have radically reformed the local government finance system putting levers and incentives in the hands of local authorities, for instance:
· The removal of ring-fencing from local government grants has given councils the freedom and flexibility over the money they receive and allows them to work with their residents to decide how best to make their spending decisions to fit their local priority needs.
· rewarded places that deliver growth, through the New Homes Bonus and Business Rate Retention.
· Local authorities now directly retain 50% of business rates locally which amounts to nearly £11 billion, instead of returning it to Whitehall.
· We established five pilot Rural Growth Networks aimed at tackling the barriers to economic growth in rural areas, such as a shortage of work premises, slow internet connectivity and fragmented business networks. These pilots expect to create up to 3,000 new jobs and support up to 700 new businesses, offering a local approach to local problems. We will share the lessons they learn with other Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities to help them promote growth in other rural areas.
We have also given councils the ability to borrow against their Housing Revenue Account.
Through the city deals programme we have devolved powers and responsibilities to 26 cities. For example we have:
•provided levers to deliver the skills and jobs that local businesses and people need;
•created joint investment programmes; and
• devolved greater financial powers and incentives to invest in growth to all cities.
As we made clear in our response to Lord Heseltine’s review of Growth, we intend to go further. We have committed to negotiating Growth Deals with every Local Enterprise Partnership through which we will allocate the Local Growth Fund and negotiate broader powers, freedoms and flexibilities where a strong case for decentralisation can be made. The Local Growth Fund brings together funding from skills, housing and transport and we have committed £2 billion in 2015/16 and it will continue to be at least £2 billion a year up to 2021. The Local Growth Fund includes:
We are also for the first time putting £5 billion of European Structural Investment Funds for the 2014-20 period under the strategic direction of Local Enterprise Partnerships, bringing the total resource (including the Local Growth Fund) under the control of Local Enterprise Partnerships to over £17 billion up until 2020.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Catherine McKinnell on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Attorney General, what assessment he has made of the effect of the criminal courts charge on the reduction in costs awarded to the Crown Prosecution Service under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as a result of (a) magistrates and (b) judges using their discretion to lower the level of costs awarded.
Robert Buckland
The criminal court charge imposed a non-discretionary charge on all adult offenders convicted for offences committed on or after 13 April 2015 and is imposed separately from other financial considerations and orders the court may make. It is premature to fully appreciate the implications of the charge on the criminal justice system.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not maintain data on the value of costs awarded to the CPS but does have data on the value of costs recovered following the award of costs. The value of costs recovered and paid to CPS, following the award of costs under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, in quarter 1 2015-16 was about £10.7m, in line with expectations.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-19.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if his Department will take steps to ensure that graduates from a working class background are recruited onto the Civil Service Fast Stream.
Matthew Hancock
To govern modern Britain, the Civil Service needs to look and sound likemodern Britain. We need access to the broadest possible pool of talent, drawing on peoplefrom all backgrounds and all parts of the country.
The Civil Service is implementing a number of initiatives to recruit individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds onto the Fast Stream and Fast Track Apprenticeship schemes, including internship programmes, schools and colleges mentoring and discovery days, work experience programmes and engagement with universities with a high representation of lower socio-economic students.
Information on the socio-economic status of recent appointees to the SCS was published in 2014,and the socio-economic status of Fast-Stream applicants has been published since 2011.
In 2015 16.8% of new joiners to the Fast Track Apprenticeship Scheme were from lower socio-economic backgrounds, up from 8.5% in 2013/14. From 2015 this data will be published as part of the Fast Stream applicants publication.