Tag: 2016

  • Sarah Wollaston – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Sarah Wollaston – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Wollaston on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether Section 106 contributions for highways infrastructure works can be used to pay for (a) the costs of administrative, legal or design work or general highways maintenance works required prior to the installation of highways infrastructure works and (b) other associated overhead costs incurred by the local highways authority or its contractors.

    Brandon Lewis

    It is for the local planning authority to determine what is required and seek planning obligations through a Section 106 agreement in order to make a development acceptable in planning terms. There are three statutory tests that need to be applied when considering a planning obligation, that it is: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

    Developers may be asked to provide contributions for infrastructure in several ways. This may be by way of planning obligations in the form of Section 106 agreements but can also include contributions through payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 278 highway agreements.

    It is for local planning authorities to decide what provisions they make in Section 106 agreements, and agree these with the interested parties, and therefore any liabilities would depend on the individual agreement. Local authorities and developers can renegotiate planning obligations by mutual agreement at any time or under Section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, Local planning authorities are expected to use all of the funding they receive through planning obligations in accordance with the terms of the individual planning obligation agreement. This is to ensure that new developments are acceptable in planning terms; benefit local communities and support the provision of local infrastructure.

  • David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    David Lammy – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Lammy on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what UK Trade and Investment’s total (a) operating budget, (b) communications budget and (c) expenditure on third party communications consultancy and public relations agencies was in (i) 2014, (ii) 2015 and (iii) 2016.

    Anna Soubry

    UK Trade and Investment’s (UKTI) total (a1) operating budget, (b) communications budget and (c) expenditure on third party communications consultancy and public relations agencies in (i) 2014, (ii) 2015 and (iii) 2016 was as follows in the table below. We have also provided additional figures (a2) to reflect UKTI total associated operating costs which were allocated by parliament to UKTI’s parent departments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills prior to 2015/16. These costs have been increasingly consolidated into UKTI operating budget over the last two years:

    2013/14(£m)

    2014/15(£m)

    2015/16 (£m)

    A1

    166.4

    271.9

    343.0

    A2

    209.6

    90.4

    –

    376.0

    362.3

    343.0

    B

    12.6

    4.1

    4.1

    C

    0.5

    3.8

    1.4
  • Callum McCaig – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Callum McCaig – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Callum McCaig on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what progress her Department has made on identifying a site for the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste.

    Andrea Leadsom

    In the 2014 Implementing Geological Disposal White Paper [1] Government set out three initial actions which will provide greater clarity on issues such as geology, development impacts and community representation.

    Government and Radioactive Waste Management (the developer of a Geological Disposal Facility) are making good progress delivering these initial actions in the short term, with a clear long term goal of delivering safe and secure final disposal of all our radioactive waste.

    Formal engagement between the developer and potential host communities will start in due course once the Government and Radioactive Waste Management have delivered these initial actions.

    [1] Further information about the initial actions is in the 2014 Geological Disposal White paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332890/GDF_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf

    “

  • Craig Tracey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Craig Tracey – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Craig Tracey on 2016-09-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will amend national planning policies so that development of land designated as Green Belt will be resisted until the implications of the UK exiting the EU, and its effect on population and household projections, have been fully assessed and new projections issued for the use of local planning authorities.

    Gavin Barwell

    In line with our manifesto commitment, the government is committed to strong protection of Green Belt land. Local authorities are responsible for designating Green Belt land, as explained in our National Planning Policy Framework. Only in exceptional circumstances may a local authority alter a Green Belt boundary. Applications for most types of development within the Green Belt are inappropriate and should be refused permission except in very special circumstances. Latest figures for 2015-16 show Green Belt continuing to cover around 13 per cent of England.

  • Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Lord Crisp – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Crisp on 2016-01-20.

    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for increased funding for the infrastructure costs associated with mental health research.

    Lord Prior of Brampton

    Mental health research is vital for better prevention of mental illness, development and evaluation of effective treatments, and to inform organisation and delivery of high quality care. Research funders are working together in this field to identify priorities and co-ordinate activity. In November 2015, the Department and Royal College of Psychiatrists held a joint meeting to identify key questions for mental health research. Following this meeting, funding organisations met on 6 January to discuss the strategic co-ordination of mental health research.

    In 2014/15, the Department’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) spent £27.7 million on mental health through its research programmes – expenditure higher than in any other disease area including cancer (£19.8 million). In all, the NIHR spent a total of £72.6 million on mental health research in that year, including research infrastructure and fellowships.

    Total NIHR investment in mental health research infrastructure (including that provided through NIHR biomedical research centres and the NIHR Clinical Research Network) has nearly doubled from £23.8 million in 2009/10 to £41.8 million in 2014/15.

    The NIHR has launched a new, open competition for biomedical research centre funding from April 2017 to March 2022. In this competition, a number of clinical areas of particular strategic importance to the health of patients are highlighted including mental health.

    The NIHR Clinical Research Network supports delivery in the National Health Service of studies funded by the NIHR itself and by eligible partners including the United Kingdom Research Councils and medical research charities. To date in 2015/16, the network has recruited 23,778 participants in 273 studies where mental health is recorded as the main specialty. The network will continue to monitor the study pipeline for mental health.

  • Danny Kinahan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Danny Kinahan – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Danny Kinahan on 2016-02-08.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will take steps to ensure consistency of GCSE grades across the UK after changes to the grading system.

    Nick Gibb

    This is a matter for Ofqual, the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation. I have therefore asked its Chief Regulator, Glenys Stacey, to write directly to the Honourable Member. A copy of her reply will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  • Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Geoffrey Cox – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Cox on 2016-03-03.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of expanding the Marine Conservation Zone from Bideford to Foreland Point to include the Greencliff site.

    George Eustice

    This extension was proposed in a response to the consultation on the designation of this Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). Boundary issues were examined where new relevant information or data were presented which had not previously been considered. Natural England analysed evidence submitted with the extension proposal and advised that it would increase the area of intertidal rock and seabed sediment habitats protected, but these were already protected elsewhere within the MCZ, and in the wider network. Any proposed changes to the boundary cannot be made without further consultation with other stakeholders who may be affected by the change.

  • Richard Arkless – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    Richard Arkless – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Richard Arkless on 2016-04-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whether he plans to increase the funding available for disability sports which are not currently paralympic sports.

    David Evennett

    Government recognises the importance of sport and physical activity to disabled people who take part at both grassroots and the elite level. Our new sport strategy, ‘Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation’, published in December 2015, emphasises the importance of getting people active, particularly those groups currently under-represented, including disabled people.

    Sport England is investing over £170 million in England to get more disabled people playing both Paralympic and non-Paralympic sports; and it will shortly publish its own strategy for England, following a wide public consultation, setting out how it intends to deliver against the government’s sport strategy, including how it will promote grassroots sport and physical activity for all.

    Elite disability sport is funded by UK Sport whose role it is to ensure that the resources available to support Paralympic athletes are targeted to maximise medal success.

  • Barry Gardiner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Barry Gardiner – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Barry Gardiner on 2016-05-18.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to his Department’s news story of 27 April 2016, Update on a new clause to be inserted into grant agreements, what guidance his Department has given to departments which have already inserted an anti-lobbying clause into grant agreements made with organisations since the start of the current financial year.

    Matthew Hancock

    As I made clear in the House on 27 April, we are committed to protecting taxpayers’ money from being wasted on government lobbying government. We are pausing the implementation of this clause into grant agreements, pending a review of the representations made.

  • Gloria De Piero – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Gloria De Piero – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gloria De Piero on 2016-06-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions his Department has had in recent months with (a) Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and (b) Nottingham University Hospitals Trust on potential financial support from his Department to cover the costs of Sherwood Forest’s PFI arrangements.

    George Freeman

    The Department has not received an application for Private Finance Iinitiative financial support associated with the proposed Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust long term partnership.

    The Department has taken part in a brief initial discussion with Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust’s advisors and NHS Improvement in relation to the process, timescales and other relevant issues associated with the long term partnership. However financial plans for the long term partnership have not yet been put forward to the Department to enable formal financial discussions.