Tag: Hilary Benn

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-10-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will place in the Library a copy of any letters or emails (a) sent to Interserve by his Department and (b) received by his Department from Interserve relating to a letter sent by cleaners working in his Department’s premises to him regarding the living wage dated 21 July 2015.

Mr Philip Hammond

Officials are currently compiling and reviewing correspondence in relation to the cleaners’ letter to me of 21 July 2015 in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Copies of all information released under the FOI request will be placed in the Library as soon as investigations are complete.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-10-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what his most recent assessment is of the political situation in Zimbabwe.

Mr Philip Hammond

Since the 2013 elections, our assessment of the political situation in Zimbabwe remains broadly the same, with 2015 signalling some positive developments. Within the Zimbabwe African National Union administration there are signs of reformist policies beginning to emerge, especially on the economy. The human rights situation has remained relatively stable and reported violations continue to fall. However, the situation continues to be fragile and we remain concerned about human rights abuses, especially during election periods. Ahead of the 2018 elections, it is critical that electoral reforms are implemented, and that the international community supports the people of Zimbabwe in exercising their democratic right to build a free, peaceful and prosperous future.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-10-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what assessment she has made of (a) the level of humanitarian need and (b) access for the provision of humanitarian support in Yemen.

Mr Desmond Swayne

The humanitarian situation in Yemen is now one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. According to the UN, 21 million Yemenis – more than 80% of the population – are in need of humanitarian assistance. Of those, over 6 million people are facing severe food shortages, with households struggling to meet their daily needs. In particular, 1.8 million children require access to life-saving nutrition services. In Hodeidah city alone, UNICEF have warned that 96,000 severely malnourished children are at risk of dying.

The UK is one of the largest donors to the crisis in Yemen and has announced £75 million to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, focused on the most urgent life-saving needs. UK aid is providing vital medical supplies, water, food and emergency shelter, as well as supporting UN work to co-ordinate the international humanitarian response.

The conflict has resulted in restrictions on imports of commercial and humanitarian supplies to Yemen and intense fighting on the ground, which has severely constrained access and limited the operational capacity of humanitarian partners across the country. The UK continues to call on all parties to the conflict to facilitate unimpeded and immediate humanitarian access to all people in need in Yemen, and to lift any restrictions on commercial and humanitarian shipping, including of fuel for civilian use.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library the impact assessment his Department prepared alongside its response to the consultation on local authority parking.

Brandon Lewis

The Government has recently published the response to the consultation, which outlines the broad series of policies to tackle unreasonable and unfair parking enforcement, support local shops and reverse the Labour Government’s war on the motorist.

We will assess in due course whether an Impact Assessment is required for the implementation of any of the specific measures, in line with the prevailing HM Government guidance on Impact Assessments.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library all responses to his Department’s consultation on local authority parking.

Penny Mordaunt

We have placed in the Library of the House, a copy of the detailed summary of the 800 responses to the consultation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what statistics his Department holds on the use of fixed penalty notices in each local authority area.

Brandon Lewis

The most recent official statistics (for 2009-10) show that 9 million parking fines were issued a year by local authorities in England. From 1997-98 to 2010-11, local authority total income from sales, fees and charges in England from parking rose from £608 million to £1.25 billion; net profits from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million in the same period. A survey by LV= car insurance last year estimated that councils hand out 10.7 million fines a year across the UK, and British motorists pay out over £30 million each month in parking fines.

Councils in England were forecast to make £635 million net profit from parking charges fines in 2013-14. Yet legislation passed by Parliament is clear that parking charges and fines should not be used to raise general revenue. However, some councils are raising money illegally from parking.

Last July, the High Court ruled that one London borough had illegally hiked parking charges to raise general revenue. The BBC television programme, Inside Out, also drew to my attention parking contracts signed by local authorities where outsourced parking wardens are rewarded for issuing more fines – in flagrant breach of the Government’s operational guidance to councils. The Local Government Association’s own participatory budgeting tool has also encouraged councils to raise parking charges and fines as a source of general revenue.

Such practices are a breach of fundamental constitutional principles from Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights: taxes should not be levied without recourse to Parliament, and the justice system should not be corrupted to raise money.

Higher parking charges and more parking fines were the explicit policy of the Labour Government. Labour DCLG Ministers called for councils to charge for more services, including parking, bemoaned that: ‘Only one in five councils are using charging to the full potential… [such as for] reducing congestion’ (Speech to the Local Government Association, 2 July 2008). Planning guidance issued by the Labour Government in 2001 (so-called PPG13) told councils to hike parking charges and adopt aggressive enforcement to discourage drivers.

My Department holds information on councils’ income from penalty charge notices. In my answer of 12 March 2014, Official Report, Column 260W, I placed in the Library a table showing the amount of money raised in parking fines in each local authority in England over time, which illustrates the need to reverse Labour’s approach.

Since 2010, this Government has already:

· Scrapped Labour’s Whitehall policy that pressured councils to hike car parking charges as a ‘demand management measure’ to discourage car use (PPG13).

· Removed Whitehall restrictions which restricted the provision of off-street parking spaces;

· Abolished Labour’s Whitehall policy which inhibited parking charge competition between council areas, and instead introduced a new policy that says parking charges should not undermine the vitality of town centres;

· Introduced a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate;

· Issued new planning practice guidance on removing street clutter and encouraging the provision of shopper-friendly parking space provision; and

· Introduced the local retention of business rates, which means that councils benefit from business and retail growth in town centres, rather than just hiking parking charges.

In addition, the Government recently announced a further series of reforms:

· Stopping the abuse or misuse of on-street parking CCTV on an industrial scale. Parking CCTV spy cars were introduced by the last Labour Government.

· Reforming operational parking guidance so it is less heavy handed with motorists, prevents over-aggressive action by bailiffs, positively supports local shops and clearly reinforces the prohibition against parking being used to generate profit;

· Introducing mandatory 10 minute “grace periods” at the end of on-street paid and free parking, and off-street municipal parking;

· Implementing a new right to allow local residents and local firms to demand a review of parking in their area, including charges and the use of yellow lines;

· Proposing a widening of the powers of parking adjudicators, and updating guidance so the public know when they can be awarded costs at tribunals;

· Trialling a 25% discount for drivers at appeal stage, reversing the current disincentive for drivers with a legitimate case to appeal;

· Changing guidance so drivers parking at an out-of-order meter are not fined if there are no alternative ways to pay;

· Maintaining a freeze on parking penalty charges for the remainder of this Parliament; and

· Updating the local government Transparency Code to increase information about local parking charges and the number of parking spaces.

Unreasonable parking charges and fines push up hard-working people’s cost of living. If parking is too expensive or difficult, shoppers will simply drive to out of town supermarkets or just shop online, undermining the vitality of town centres and leading to ‘ghost town’ high streets. But, by rejecting Labour’s approach, this Government is standing up for hard-working people and local shops.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how much his Department spent in legal fees during the judicial review brought against his Department on the solar farm at Ellough Airfield, Suffolk.

Kris Hopkins

Planning casework is a quasi-judicial function of the department, and as was the case under the last Administration, it attracts a high volume of legal challenges. This is particularly the case in light of the long-term growth of both judicial review and the growing creep of European Union directives, regulations and case law.

Yet to place the Department’s spending in context, I would observe that the Department spent £1.7 million in external lawyers’ fees in 2009-10 (excluding Treasury Solicitors), in 2013-14, the figure had fallen to £699,000.

The proposed application for a sizeable solar farm development in Suffolk was refused by Waveney District Council. That decision was appealed by the developer, was recovered for Ministerial decision, and that appeal was refused by the Secretary of State. The decision letter outlines the reasons, but particular issues included the effect upon the character and appearance of the countryside.

The appellant, Lark Energy, challenged the decision in the High Court; four of the five grounds of challenge were rejected by the Court. The challenge however succeeded on just one ground – a technical point of law on the application of the statutory test for appeals under the relevant planning legislation. The Department spent £6,596 (ex VAT) in defending this challenge. The appeal is now back with the Department for re-determination.

Equally, I would observe that a week later, the High Court upheld the decision of the Secretary of State in a recovered appeal to refuse a proposed six turbine wind farm on the Somerset Levels, following its initial refusal by Sedgemoor District Council. The applicants, Ecotricity, were ordered to pay the Department’s costs (which may be in the region of £9,000).

All decisions on recovered appeals are taken by the Secretary of State on their merits, following due process and after careful consideration of both the public inquiry evidence and the independent Inspector’s recommendation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the additional cost of additional appeals to the Parking Traffic Appeals Service if a 25 per cent discount is given to motorists who lose an appeal at tribunal against the issue of a parking ticket.

Brandon Lewis

As recommended by the Transport Select Committee (Local authority parking enforcement, HC 118, October 2013), the Government intends to work in partnership with a local authority to assess introducing a 25% discount to motorists who lose an appeal at tribunal level. This trial will allow us to evaluate the impacts, before rolling out the policy nationally.

The underlying policy rationale is the current lack of any discount at an appeal stage (but with a discount operating if the driver does not appeal) acts as a disincentive for drivers with genuine cases to appeal. I would remind the rt. hon. Member that parking fines are a quasi-judicial process, not a source of revenue for councils. This Government believes in fairness, in contrast to the Labour Government which actively told councils to adopt aggressive parking enforcement practices.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 17 June 2014, Official Report, column 578W, on rent, what his policy is on developing rent review clauses which are index-linked to inflation in a model for longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

Kris Hopkins

I refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer to him of 17 June 2014, Official Report, Column 578W, which outlines the Government’s policy and our opposition to the Labour Party calls for rent controls.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he expects to consult on the review of the General Permitted Development Order announced in Budget 2014.

Nick Boles

We will consult in due course. The consultation will include proposals on the wider retail use class announced in the Budget 2014.