Blog

  • Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Greg Mulholland – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Greg Mulholland on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to deal with the problem of aircraft being targeted by laser pens.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), as independent aviation safety regulator, is co-ordinating an industry-wide initiative to decide what further measures are needed to reduce the risk of an accident from laser pens. As part of this process, the CAA is working with a wide range of key stakeholders including relevant Government Departments, emergency services, air traffic control, airports, and airlines. The CAA has also published a Safety Notice providing guidance on the action that aircraft crew and air traffic controllers should take during and after an incident.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 15 October 2015 to Question 11472, what (a) his Department’s expenditure per head and (b) total expenditure from the public purse on cycling in each English region was in each year from 2011-12 to 2014-15; and what expenditure per head on cycling (i) by his Department and (ii) from the public purse is projected to be in each English region in 2015-16.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    In the five years 2011/12 to 2015/16, the Department for Transport (DfT) has increased its spend on cycling in England from £1 per head to £3 per head. Local authorities also spend significant amounts on cycling and over the same period, total spend on cycling in England has increased from £2 per head to £6 per head. Spend is over £10 per head in the eight Cycle Ambition Cities and London.

    2011/12

    2012/13

    2013/14

    2014/15

    2015/16

    DfT spend per head

    £1

    £2

    £2

    £2

    £3

    Total spend per head

    £2

    £4

    £5

    £5

    £6

    The DfT budgets are:

    DfT budgets:

    2011-12

    2012-13

    2013-14

    2014-15

    Projected spend 2015-16

    Cycle-Rail

    £7.0

    £7.5

    £14.0

    Bikeability

    £11.7

    £11.7

    £11.7

    £11.7

    £11.7

    Junction safety

    £30.0

    £5.0

    Linking Communities

    £13.0

    £8.0

    £7.5

    Cycling Ambition – Cities/National Parks

    £46.6

    £46.6

    £15.0

    Highways Agency

    £4.8

    £16.7

    LSTF- Cycling

    £37.8

    £37.8

    £37.8

    £37.8

    £64.5

    LGF

    £20.2

    Total DfT

    £62.5

    £94.5

    £120.9

    £96.1

    £142.1

    In 2014-15, the Department’s dedicated cycling programmes were Bikeability, Cycle Ambition Cities, Cycling in National Parks and the Highways Agency’s cycling programme. The Department also funds cycling programmes through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, with 28% of the LSTF being spent on cycling. The Department secures a range of match funding contributions from local authorities for these programmes: the LSTF secured 99% match funding.

    Lists of projects and locations are available for the following programmes:

    Cycle-rail:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-rail-fund-schemes-2015-to-2016

    Linking Communities:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/linking-places-fund

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/linking-places-fund-tranche-2

    Local Sustainable Transport Fund:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/local-sustainable-transport-fund

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224172/project-summaries-consolidated.pdf

    Cycle Ambition Cities and Cycling in National Parks:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-city-ambition-grants

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-in-national-parks-grants

    Bikeability:

    http://bikeability.org.uk/publications/

    “

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 15 October 2015 to Question 11431, which key senior stakeholders have been represented at the Bowe Review – Senior Liaison Board on each of the dates referred to in that Answer.

    Claire Perry

    On 24th March, 20th May, 24th June senior stakeholders from Rail Executive, Department for Transport; the Office of Rail and Road; Network Rail; HM Treasury; Cabinet Office and the Major Projects Authority were represented at the Bowe Review – Senior Liaison Board.

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lilian Greenwood – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lilian Greenwood on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Answer of 15 October 2015 to Question 11430, what steps his Department took before 15 September 2015 in relation to bus operators who submitted claims for Bus Service Operators Grant funding to support closed bus services.

    Andrew Jones

    In considering claims from bus operators for Bus Service Operators Grant (BSOG) for the bus services that they run, my department analyses each claim to ensure that these meet the eligibility criteria for the grant scheme, including those relating to services which serve educational establishments. Where we receive claims that we consider to be ineligible for BSOG – for instance closed services – and where operators are unable to demonstrate that they are eligible, the claims are disallowed. The eligibility criteria for the scheme are printed on the forms which operators must fill in and submit to the department in order to claim the grant.

  • Daniel Kawczynski – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Daniel Kawczynski – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Daniel Kawczynski on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many (a) enforcement cases and (b) out-of-court settlements there were for non-payment of vehicle tax between (i) October 2013 and June 2014 and (ii) October 2014 and June 2015.

    Andrew Jones

    The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) employs a range of enforcement activities including reminder letters, out-of-court settlements, wheelclamping or prosecutions. There were 609,938 cases eligible for enforcement action between October 2013 and June 2014. Of these, 135,456 were settled by way of an out-of-court settlement payment. Between October 2014 and June 2015 there were 757,086 cases eligible for enforcement action with 161,117 reconciled by way of an out-of-court settlement payment.

  • Emma Lewell-Buck – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Emma Lewell-Buck – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Lewell-Buck on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the parliamentary communications of the hon. Member for South Shields; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

    The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

    It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

  • Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Roger Godsiff – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roger Godsiff on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the parliamentary communications of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

    The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

    It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

  • Valerie Vaz – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Valerie Vaz – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Valerie Vaz on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the communications of the hon. Member for Walsall South; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

    The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

    It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

  • Sarah Champion – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Sarah Champion – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Champion on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Wilson Doctrine has been consistently applied to the communications of the hon. Member for Rotherham; and whether that hon. Member has been subject to surveillance.

    Mr John Hayes

    The Government’s position on the Wilson Doctrine was set out by the Prime Minister in a written ministerial statement made on 4 November 2015.

    As the Prime Minister made clear, the Wilson Doctrine has never been an absolute bar to the targeted interception of the communications of Members of Parliament or an exemption from the legal regime governing interception. The Doctrine recognised that there could be instances where interception might be necessary.

    The Prime Minister announced that as matter of policy the PM will be consulted should there ever be a proposal to target any UK Parliamentarian’s communications under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. This applies to Members of Parliament, members of the House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and UK members of the European Parliament. It applies to all activity authorised by a warrant issued by a Secretary of State: any instance of targeted interception and, electronic surveillance and equipment interference, when undertaken by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. This is in addition to the rigorous safeguards already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Code of Practice issued under it which set out a series of robust safeguards for any instance of interception.

    It is long standing policy of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny any specific activity by the Security and Intelligence Agencies. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 it is an offence for anyone to identify an individual interception warrant or an individual interception that takes place.

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Leader of the House

    Hilary Benn – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Leader of the House

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-10-16.

    To ask the Leader of the House, whether he has had discussions with the Chairs of the Business, Innovation and Skills, International Development, Foreign Affairs and Defence select committees on their re-establishment of the Committees on Arms Export Controls.

    Chris Grayling

    No. The re-establishment of the Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) is a matter for the relevant committees under Standing Order No. 137, which allows for the concurrent meeting of any select committee with another for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence.