Tag: Chris Ruane

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.

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 local authorities have failed standard 3 door-to-door canvassing more than once and (a) have and (b) have not applied for additional central government funding for electoral registration.

Mr Gary Streeter

The Electoral Commission informs me that the Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) for the authorities set out in the table below have not met standard 3 in more than one year:

Brentwood

Broxbourne

Castle Point

East Devon

East Dorset

East Hampshire

East Hertfordshire

Epping Forest

Great Yarmouth

Gwynedd

Hyndburn

Lancaster

Maldon

Merthyr Tydfil

Mid Devon

Mid Sussex

North Devon

North Dorset

North Lanarkshire

North Warwickshire

Powys

Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

Sedgemoor

Solihull

South Lanarkshire

Taunton Deane

The Vale of Glamorgan

Torridge

Uttlesford

Warwick

West Devon

West Oxfordshire

West Somerset

The Electoral Commission informs me that it does not hold information on applications made for central government funding for electoral registration. The Cabinet Office is responsible for managing this process.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chris Ruane on 2015-02-11.

To ask the hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what guidance the Electoral Commission issues on the sale of electoral registration details of electors who (a) are on the open register and (b) have opted not to be included on the central register.

Mr Gary Streeter

Electoral legislation prescribes in what circumstances and to whom electors’ details on the full and open electoral registers can be sold.

The ‘full’ electoral register includes the names and addresses of everyone who is registered to vote. Access to, and use of, the full electoral register is carefully controlled. It is only available for sale to certain government departments and other bodies, as well as to credit reference agencies, and may only be used for the purposes for which it has been supplied (for example, credit reference agencies may only use it for credit reference purposes).

The open register is an extract of the electoral register, which electors can opt out of. The open register can be bought by any person, company or organisation.

The Electoral Commission’s guidance to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) summarises what they are required to do by law. The guidance makes clear the difference between the open and the full registers, and sets out who can have access to them and the prescribed fees for supply.

Individuals applying to register to vote are provided with information on the open and full registers, including what they are used for and who can be provided with data from them.

As part of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, EROs wrote to all existing electors who had been automatically transferred to the new registers. This letter included information on both the open and full register. The Commission’s report on the first phase of the transition to Individual Electoral Registration, published in October 2014, noted that when EROs began sending these confirmation letters it became clear from the response that many people who were on the open register were not aware of that fact, and were unhappy about how their information was being used.

The Commission remains of the view that the open register should no longer be compiled or made available for sale. The Commission has also recommended that, should the open register be retained, electors should be asked whether they wish to opt in, rather than opt out.