Blog

  • Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Baroness Sharp of Guildford – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Sharp of Guildford on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of 17 year-olds in England are participating in education and training in fulfilment of the duty to participate set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and what steps they are taking to maximise participation from September 2015 when the requirement to participate increases to the 18th birthday.

    Lord Nash

    Young people who were aged 17 at the start of this academic year were covered by the first phase of raising the participation age (RPA) set out in the Education and Skills Act 2008. This required them to continue in education or training for one further year, to 27 June 2014. This cohort is therefore no longer under a duty to participate, although we expect that the vast majority of them will continue to participate this academic year.

    Data showing the proportion of these young people participating in the current academic year will be published as part of the 16-18 participation statistical first release at the end of June.

    Young people who were aged 16 at the start of this academic year will be under a duty to participate until their 18th birthday. We will encourage schools, colleges and training providers to ensure that young people are aware of this requirement.

    In addition, local authorities have a duty to promote the effective participation in education and training of 16 and 17 year olds in their area with a view to ensuring that they fulfil the duty to participate.

    We plan to invest £7.2 billion in 2014/15 to fund education and training places for 16 to 19-year-olds. The government has implemented a range of other measures to promote participation and help young people get the best possible start in life, including the reform of vocational education and the Youth Contract.

  • Lord Scriven – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Lord Scriven – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Scriven on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many public bodies as defined in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill do not meet the provisions of the Prevent duty guidance consultation document, according to each category of public body.

    Lord Bates

    The duty outlined in Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (‘the Prevent duty’) falls on the specified authorities listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill. The authorities include local government, prisons and probation services, schools, further and higher education institutions, NHS bodies, and the police. The Government does not hold information about the Prevent policies and processes of all the authorities on which the duty would fall. There are many examples of good practice, but involvement in Prevent activity is not consistent across the country. In legislating, the Government’s intention is to spread that good practice, and ensure all apply the duty in a risk-based and proportionate way.

  • The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Sandwich on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which United Kingdom-based or indigenous aid agencies and non-governmental organisations working to reduce poverty in India currently receive funding from the Department for International Development; and which will continue to receive funding from the Department for International Development after its official programme closes.

    Baroness Northover

    DFID’s financial grant aid to India will cease in 2015, as we move towards a new UK-India development partnership. After 2015, our partnership will be based on sharing skills and expertise, investing in private sector projects that benefit the poor whilst generating a return, and working together on global development issues. While current funding to NGO’s will end as individual projects come to a close over 2015/ 16, individual future projects involving Technical Assistance may find that NGO’s are the most appropriate partner.

  • The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Sandwich on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of bilateral aid from the Department for International Development in the last three financial years has been channelled through non-governmental organisations (1) based in the United Kingdom, and (2) based in the recipient countries.

    Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth

    The table below shows the proportion of bilateral aid from the Department for International Development in the last three calendar years which has been channelled through non-governmental organisations (1) based in the United Kingdom, and (2) based in the recipient countries.

    NGO Percentage of DFID Net Bilateral ODA

    2011

    2012

    2013

    NGO Based in the United Kingdom

    8%

    9%

    10%

    NGO Based in Recipient Countries

    2%

    2%

    3%
  • The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The Earl of Sandwich – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Earl of Sandwich on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent humanitarian trade between Iran and the United Kingdom is exempt from sanctions; to what extent the Joint Plan of Action has facilitated this trade, if at all; and what humanitarian and cultural trade is taking place.

    Baroness Anelay of St Johns

    EU sanctions against Iran do not prevent Iran from purchasing humanitarian goods such as food and medicines. The UK issues as a priority licenses for transactions for these goods. Furthermore, the Joint Plan of Action includes provisions to make humanitarian trade with Iran easier. Medicinal and pharmaceutical exports from the UK to Iran in 2014 were £16,551,536.

  • Lord Bradshaw – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Lord Bradshaw – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Bradshaw on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on total passenger capacity of the East Coast Main Line of the use of 280-seat trains on 17 per cent of the long distance train paths into and out of King’s Cross, as compared with the 530-seat trains used by the InterCity East Coast franchise.

    Baroness Kramer

    Decisions on the allocation of track capacity on the railway are matters for Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation. Clearly, where the number of available train paths on a route is constrained, as in the case of parts of the East Coast Main Line, the use of trains with fewer seats than the maximum operationally possible would reduce passenger capacity. However there are other factors influencing the allocation of train paths, including the need for services to cover a range of different routes and stopping patterns, and the availability of rolling stock. The Government would expect such considerations to be taken into account within the decision process.

  • Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many adopted local plans include the designation of local green spaces; and how many such spaces have been designated.

    Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

    We do not collect detailed statistics on individual policies within Local Plans.

  • Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the percentage change in spending on rights of way and countryside access by each local highway authority between 2010–11 and 2014–15.

    Lord De Mauley

    Local highway authorities are responsible for protecting the rights of the public to use footpaths and other rights of way. They are also responsible for determining their own local spending priorities and it is for local people to hold them to account. Consequently, the information requested is held by each local highway authority, not centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients presented themselves to the Accident and Emergency and Urgent Care Units at the Royal Blackburn Hospital and Burnley General Hospital respectively in each month in the last two years; and in each month how many of those patients were admitted for treatment.

    Earl Howe

    Information is not available in the format requested.

    Information showing quarterly accident and emergency activity and admissions at the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust between Q4 2010-11 and Q4 2014-15, is shown in the attached tables.

  • Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Lord Greaves – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government which local authorities in England have taken part in the Weekly Collection Support Scheme; how many authorities took part in the expression of interest process; which have subsequently received financial support, and how much; and of those, which have reinstated weekly collections of general (“grey” or “residual”) waste, which have used the support to collect food waste separately, and which have used it in other ways.

    Lord Ahmed

    In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.

    A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website.

    It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010:

    • Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.

    • 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. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;

    • Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;

    • 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”;

    • 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 bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;

    • Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;

    • Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.

    Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.