The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-02-26.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many times (a) the Cabinet Committee on improving the country ability to deal with flooding and (b) the National Resilience Forum has met in the last 12 months; and when each body will next meet.
Mr Francis Maude
As was the case under previous administrations, information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees is generally not disclosed.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2013-05-08.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what assessment he has made of the outcome of his Department’s matching of the electoral register with Department for Work and Pensions data in communities with (a) seaside towns and (b) towns with high student populations; and what effect this work will have on the size of electorates in these constituencies.
Chloe Smith
As part of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER), entries on the electoral register will be matched against data held by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for the purposes of confirming existing electors, a process which will simplify the transition for the majority of existing electors. Last year the Cabinet Office undertook pilots to test this process and we published our evaluation of these pilots earlier this year which is available to download from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/simplifying-the-transition-to-individual-electoral-registration
The evaluation report includes an analysis of match rates by population groups and while no specific analysis was undertaken of seaside towns, the results did suggest that match rates were lower in areas with high student populations. However, anyone who cannot be confirmed will still be invited to register individually and will retain their ability to vote in the 2015 general election. By using confirmation to simplify the process for the majority of electors it means resources can be focused on maximising registration among those people who cannot be confirmed, including individuals who are not currently registered. We are also currently running a separate set of pilots exploring whether data matching against DWP and other trusted national data sets can be used to find potential electors who are not currently registered but may be eligible to do so, in order to invite them to register. The results of the pilots, which are specifically targeted at boosting registrations among students, attainers and home-movers, will be published in the summer.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-24.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, with reference to the Answer of 28 January 2014, Official Report, column 510W, on electoral register: young people, how much funding his Department has made available to (a) Rock Enroll and (b) Bite the Ballot in each year for which data is available; and how many people each such organisation has directly registered in each year for which data is available.
Greg Clark
The Government is supportive of organisations that promote democratic engagement such as Bite the Ballot.
Cabinet Office and Bite the Ballot co-developed the Rock Enrol learning resource in 2012/2013. The value of the contract was £25,700. The Government has made Rock Enrol freely available freely available on the gov.uk and Times Education Supplement websites.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.
To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, if the Electoral Commission will make it their policy to gather information on registration levels on an annual basis.
Mr Gary Streeter
The Electoral Commission informs me that they collect from every ERO, and publish, annual electoral registration statistics covering a range of topics including the number of electors on the registers, response rates to the annual canvass, numbers of additions and deletions on the registers and levels of carry forward.
This data collection will be more frequent during the transition to individual electoral registration (IER).
The Commission further informs me that they report periodically on the overall levels of accuracy and completeness of the electoral registers. Such studies are costly to conduct and it is not therefore feasible to conduct them annually. There are two such studies planned as part of the Commission’s approach to monitoring the implementation of IER.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.
To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what additional central government funding is available to electoral registration officers for the purpose of electoral registration in each of the last 10 years; and which local authorities were successful in bidding for such funding.
Greg Clark
The following additional amounts were available for the purpose of electoral registration in the last 10 years:
2007/2008 – £934,741
2008/2009 – £544,391
2009/2010 – £427,190
2010/2011 – £54,708
2011/12 – no additional funding
2012/13 – no additional funding
2013/14 – £4,857,018
2014/15 – £29,992,993
In the financial years 2007/2008 to 2010/2011, local authorities were able to bid for funding from the Participation Fund, which was abolished due to lack of demand. A table listing those local authorities which received money from this fund has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Government has provided funding in 2013/14 and 2014/15, in addition to the Revenue Support Grant, for every local authority and Valuation Joint Board in England, Wales and Scotland for the net additional cost of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER).
In addition, in 2013/14 every local authority and Valuation Joint Board in England, Wales and Scotland received a share of £3,984,068funding to support the costs of activities to maximise electoral registration.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.
To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, on which dates the Electoral Commission will report to (a) Parliament and (b) individual hon. Members on the progress on the implementation of individual electoral registration.
Mr Gary Streeter
The Commission informs me that it will report to both Parliament and individual Members at appropriate points, and in line with its statutory duties throughout the implementation of Individual Electoral Registration.
The Commission intends to publish updates on progress at three key points in the transition, as laid out in its March report. This is available on the Commission’s website here:
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.
To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, how many and what proportion of people were deleted from the electoral register after the second year of non-response to electoral canvass in the 10 local authorities with the (a) greatest and (b) smallest decreases; and what parliamentary constituencies are covered by such local authorities.
Mr Gary Streeter
The Electoral Commission informs me that the requested data is presented in the table below. This data is for Great Britain and therefore excludes Northern Ireland.
|
Local authority |
Number of deletions (from Nov 2013 register) following second year of non-response |
Deletions (from Nov 2013 register) following second year of non-response (% of register) |
Decrease (Dec 2012 to Feb/March 2014) |
|
Leeds |
28,190 |
5.0 |
-24177 |
|
Birmingham |
0 |
0.0 |
-20243 |
|
Cornwall |
16541 |
3.9 |
-13273 |
|
Newham |
2491 |
1.2 |
-13183 |
|
Northampton |
2,659 |
1.7 |
-11851 |
|
Shropshire |
3,360 |
1.4 |
-11551 |
|
Barnet |
2422 |
1.0 |
-11255 |
|
Maidstone |
10498 |
8.7 |
-9257 |
|
Durham |
1191 |
0.3 |
-6683 |
|
Taunton Deane |
– |
– |
-7578 |
|
Adur |
370 |
0.8 |
-109 |
|
Staffordshire Moorlands |
195 |
0.2 |
-99 |
|
North West Leicestershire |
20 |
0.0 |
-97 |
|
Lewes |
569 |
0.7 |
-82 |
|
Cotswold |
105 |
0.2 |
-80 |
|
Oadby and Wigston |
45 |
0.1 |
-73 |
|
Newcastle-Under-Lyme |
885 |
0.9 |
-72 |
|
Shetland Islands |
17 |
0.1 |
-48 |
|
Surrey Heath |
602 |
0.9 |
-36 |
|
Tunbridge Wells |
0 |
0.0 |
-22 |
The following constituencies are covered by these areas:
East Ham
West Ham
Elmet and Rothwell
Leeds Central
Leeds East
Leeds North East
Leeds North West
Leeds West
Morley and Outwood
Pudsey
Birmingham Edgbaston
Birmingham, Erdington
Birmingham, Hall Green
Birmingham, Hodge Hill
Birmingham, Ladywood
Birmingham Northfield
Birmingham, Perry Barr
Birmingham Selly Oak
Birmingham, Yardley
Sutton Coldfield
Camborne and Redruth
North Cornwall
South East Cornwall
St Ives (includes the Isles of Scilly)
Truro and Falmouth
Northampton North
Northampton South
South Northamptonshire
Ludlow
North Shropshire
Shrewsbury and Atcham
The Wrekin
Chipping Barnet
Finchley and Golders Green
Hendon
Faversham and Mid Kent
Maidstone and The Weald
Taunton Deane
Bishop Auckland
City of Durham
Easington
North Durham
North West Durham
Sedgefield
East Worthing and Shoreham
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stone
North West Leicestershire
Brighton, Kemptown
Lewes
The Cotswolds
Harborough
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Staffordshire Moorlands
Stoke-on-Trent North
Stone
Orkney and Shetland
Surrey Heath
Maidstone and The Weald
Tunbridge Wells
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2015-01-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what limits are in place in relation to noise from (a) aircraft and (b) motor vehicles.
Mr Robert Goodwill
Civil aircraft using UK airports are subject to international noise certification standards. These are set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and applied at the time of manufacture. In addition some airports may have restrictions in place to limit noise, which will be set out in their Noise Action Plans.
The limit in place in relation to noise for modern passenger cars is 74 decibels. For motorcycles it is between 75 and 80 decibels depending on the size of the machine. For large buses and coaches the limit is between 78 and 80 decibels. For small buses and light goods vehicles it is between 76 and 77 decibels and for heavy goods vehicles the limit is between 77 and 80 decibels. These figures are all measured using a microphone fixed 7.5 metres from the line along which the vehicle is travelling.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2014-06-26.
To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which 50 local authorities had the largest decrease in electoral registration between December 2012 to March 2014; and which parliamentary constituencies cover such local authorities.
Mr Gary Streeter
The Electoral Commission informs me that the requested data is available here:
[hyperlink attached document]
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2015-01-15.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what examples his Department holds of best practice in respect of work carried out to reduce traffic noise for residents living alongside main roads.
Mr John Hayes
Best practice measures that can be used to reduce road noise for residents living alongside the strategic road network are set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD213/11. Low noise surfacing can be installed on new roads or when replacing existing worn out surfaces. Noise mitigation can be incorporated into the design of new roads by routeing away from properties where practicable and using cuttings and other land forms to act as noise barriers. Noise barriers, made from a wide variety of materials are also used to reduce road noise.