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, whether he has taken steps to ensure that contractors used by his Department do not instigate investigatory proceedings against staff for writing directly to him about their employment conditions or pay.

Mr Philip Hammond

Following the allegations from Citizens UK on 13 October 2015, of disciplinary action taken against the cleaners, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials asked Interserve for further information. Interserve replied on 15 October to say they had commenced an investigation into the letter of 21 July as it potentially represented a breach of the signed confidentiality agreement they have with their staff. They have since confirmed that no disciplinary action has been or will be taken.

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 meetings he has had with cleaners working in his Department’s premises to discuss payment of the living wage.

Mr Philip Hammond

There have been no meetings between Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and the cleaners.

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 recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Minsk Agreement in reducing fighting in Ukraine.

Mr Philip Hammond

A renewed attempt in early September by the Minsk signatories to ensure a comprehensive ceasefire has resulted in a considerable reduction in fighting along the line of contact in Eastern Ukraine, compared with the levels in previous months. Since September, casualties have mainly resulted from land mines and unexploded ordnance rather than direct shelling, which has practically ceased.

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 2015-10-12.

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 correspondence he has received from Essex County Council and Brentwood Council on changes to councillors’ eligibility for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Kris Hopkins

Brentwood Borough Council did not send in a response to the consultation on “Taxpayer-funded pensions for councillors and other elected local office holders”. A copy of Essex County Council’s response is attached.

This differential interest no doubt reflects the fact that Brentwood Borough Council did not have any councillors in the Local Government Pension Scheme (a consequence of the decision of my hon. Friend, the Member for Great Yarmouth, when he was leader of the Council not to join the scheme), whereas Essex did. Non-participating councils tended not to respond to the consultation.

Prior to the consultation, only 16 per cent of councillors were actually members of the scheme and only 55 councils actually responded. The majority of Councils and Councillors submitted no objection to the Government’s proposal to end Councillor’s access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Such taxpayer-funded local government pensions have now been abolished, subject to practical transition measures introduced as a result of the consultation. These reforms will save taxpayers’ money, strengthen the independence of councillors, and reflects that the fact that councillors are not salaried employees of the council. Nothing prevents councillors from contributing to their own private personal pension, receiving tax relief like any other member of the public.

The suggestion by some that these changes would discourage people from running for election has not been borne out. In last year’s London borough elections, all candidates nominated in the knowledge that there would be no taxpayer-funded pensions if they were elected; yet more candidates ran for election in London in 2014 than in 2010 (source: London datastore).

I suspect that the council tax-paying public would be less than impressed at the Labour Party’s calls to reintroduce such taxpayer-funded pensions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-02-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to ensures that in cases where jobseeker’s allowance claimants are sanctioned, local authorities suspend housing benefit only in cases where it is appropriate to do so.

Esther McVey

I refer the Hon. member to the reply given to the Rt Hon. Member for East Ham on 5 January 2015.

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.