Tag: Lord Greaves

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the funding allocated for the Northern Powerhouse will be spent on (1) repairs of potholes and damaged carriageways, and (2) other highway maintenance that would normally come out of annual revenue budgets; and how much of such spending will be allocated to (a) the Highways Agency, and (b) local highways authorities.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Department for Transport is allocating £1.3billion capital funding between 2015 and 2021 to local highway authorities that fall within the Northern Powerhouse for local highways maintenance. This funding can be used to repair potholes. The funding is not ring-fenced and it is entirely for each highway authority to decide, based on their needs and priorities, as to how this funding is spent. In addition the funding the Department for Transport allocated to local highway authorities in England to improve road conditions was £1 billion more over the last Parliament compared to what was provided between 2005 and 2010.

Local authorities are able to use revenue funding for maintaining their local highways and this is allocated by the Department of Communities and Local Government through the Revenue Support Grant.

The Department for Transport is funding a local highways maintenance project in Sheffield as well as street lighting schemes in Blackpool, Knowsley, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, North Tyneside, Oldham, Redcar & Cleveland, Rochdale, South Tyneside, Sunderland and Wakefield, through the Private Finance Initiative.

In addition we are also allocating £2.9 billion for improvements to the strategic road network within the Northern Powerhouse managed by Highways England as set out in the Road Investment Strategy published in March 2015 for the period between 2015 and 2020.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in considering whether to call in planning applications for schemes involving hydraulic fracturing that have taken longer than 16 weeks to be decided upon, they will count the 16 weeks from (1) the date the application was first received by the Minerals Planning Authority or (2) the date the application was registered; and whether, in either case, they will take into account (a) the timetable agreed between the applicant and the planning authority, even if that is for longer than 16 weeks, (b) delays caused by the failure of the applicant to provide the necessary information, (c) delays caused by defects in the application, (d) delays caused by amendments to the application, (e) an estimate of the additional costs likely to result from calling in the application, and (f) whether a call-in will result in a greater delay than allowing the planning authority to continue to deal with it.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

I refer the noble Lord to the written ministerial statements of 16 September, HLWS194 and HLWS195, which set out a number of measures to enable planning applications and appeals relating to shale gas and oil to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

These include a commitment by the Secretary of State to actively consider calling-in shale planning applications. Separately, a scheme has been put in place to identify local planning authority underperformance in respect of their determination of oil and gas planning applications. The scheme uses the same threshold of underperformance set out in the document ‘Improving planning performance – Criteria for designation’, of 50% or fewer applications being made within the relevant statutory time limit, or such extended period as has been agreed in writing by the applicant. The statutory time limit applies once an application has been validated by the local planning authority. Where an authority is identified as underperforming under the scheme, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will actively consider calling-in for his determination oil and gas planning applications that are validated by that authority, in accordance with existing policy.

The decision on whether to call-in any application will be taken in line with current call-in policy. Any applications relating to shale gas that are called-in would be prioritised for urgent resolution.

If the Secretary of State were to grant a planning permission in respect of a called-in application, then any details of the scheme that are the subject of planning conditions would need to be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-09-17.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the case of planning applications for schemes involving hydraulic fracturing that have been determined by the Secretary of State after being called in as a result of the failure of the Minerals Planning Authority to do so within 16 weeks, any conditions that require further approval of details of the scheme will be dealt with by application to (1) the planning authority, or (2) the Secretary of State.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

I refer the noble Lord to the written ministerial statements of 16 September, HLWS194 and HLWS195, which set out a number of measures to enable planning applications and appeals relating to shale gas and oil to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

These include a commitment by the Secretary of State to actively consider calling-in shale planning applications. Separately, a scheme has been put in place to identify local planning authority underperformance in respect of their determination of oil and gas planning applications. The scheme uses the same threshold of underperformance set out in the document ‘Improving planning performance – Criteria for designation’, of 50% or fewer applications being made within the relevant statutory time limit, or such extended period as has been agreed in writing by the applicant. The statutory time limit applies once an application has been validated by the local planning authority. Where an authority is identified as underperforming under the scheme, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will actively consider calling-in for his determination oil and gas planning applications that are validated by that authority, in accordance with existing policy.

The decision on whether to call-in any application will be taken in line with current call-in policy. Any applications relating to shale gas that are called-in would be prioritised for urgent resolution.

If the Secretary of State were to grant a planning permission in respect of a called-in application, then any details of the scheme that are the subject of planning conditions would need to be submitted to and approved by the relevant local planning authority.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which local authorities in England have taken part in the Weekly Collection Support Scheme; how many authorities took part in the expression of interest process; which have subsequently received financial support, and how much; and of those, which have reinstated weekly collections of general (“grey” or “residual”) waste, which have used the support to collect food waste separately, and which have used it in other ways.

Lord Ahmed

In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.

A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website.

It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010:

• Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.

• Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;

• Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;

• Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (“Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide”);

• Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;

• Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;

• Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;

• Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;

• Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;

• Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;

• Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;

• Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;

• Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;

• Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.

Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many patients presented themselves to the Accident and Emergency and Urgent Care Units at the Royal Blackburn Hospital and Burnley General Hospital respectively in each month in the last two years; and in each month how many of those patients were admitted for treatment.

Earl Howe

Information is not available in the format requested.

Information showing quarterly accident and emergency activity and admissions at the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust between Q4 2010-11 and Q4 2014-15, is shown in the attached tables.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the percentage change in spending on rights of way and countryside access by each local highway authority between 2010–11 and 2014–15.

Lord De Mauley

Local highway authorities are responsible for protecting the rights of the public to use footpaths and other rights of way. They are also responsible for determining their own local spending priorities and it is for local people to hold them to account. Consequently, the information requested is held by each local highway authority, not centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many adopted local plans include the designation of local green spaces; and how many such spaces have been designated.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

We do not collect detailed statistics on individual policies within Local Plans.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment have they made of the rate and extent of the spread of Japanese Knotweed in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world where it is not native.

Lord De Mauley

We are aware that Japanese knotweed is widespread across many parts of the world; recent information (from the CABI Compendium, part funded by Defra) suggests it is found in 35 countries outside its native range. Following its introduction to the UK in the early 1800s, Japanese knotweed was first recorded in the wild in 1886. Its initial spread was slow. By 1930 it was present in 73 hectads (i.e. 10km x 10km squares) in the British Isles; by 1986 it had spread to 948 hectads and it is now present in approximately 2,879 hectads.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rate and extent of the spread of Lyme disease in (1) the United Kingdom, (2) other parts of the European Union, and (3) other parts of the world.

Earl Howe

Public Health England monitors laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease (also known as Lyme borreliosis) in England and Wales, devolved administrations of Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate local arrangements in place.

The rate of laboratory-confirmed Lyme borreliosis and its regional distribution in England and Wales has not changed significantly in recent years, data for 2013 will be published shortly.

Assessment of Lyme borreliosis in other European Union (EU) countries is co-ordinated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Reporting systems and criteria are not standardised throughout EU countries and this data is not routinely collected by ECDC. Therefore as an assessment of Lyme borreliosis using routinely collected data across the EU is not available.

Reporting of Lyme borreliosis worldwide is co-ordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO) based on the heterogeneous reporting systems and criteria adopted by individual countries.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Greaves on 2015-01-14.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information, advice and training is provided to doctors and nurses on the symptoms and treatment of Lyme disease; what advice is provided to general practitioners on the reference to specialists of patients exhibiting symptoms of Lyme disease; and which centres provide specialist treatment for that disease.

Baroness Jolly

Public Health England (PHE) and the National Health Service have detailed information on the recognition, diagnosis, treatment and management of Lyme disease. PHE has also written a guide on how to refer patients for specialist advice, which is attached. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also has an online guide for general practitioners (GP) and other health professionals.

PHE issues a letter to all GPs on an annual basis at the beginning of the tick season describing Lyme disease and highlighting the need to be aware and to recognise the condition. The majority of cases are managed by GPs without reference to specialists, but problem cases can be referred to neurology, rheumatology, cardiology and infectious disease clinics depending on the local provision and of services and patient’s symptoms. In addition to the attached guidance, Suggested referral pathway for patients with symptoms related to Lyme disease, PHE offers a telephone helpline for GPs and consultants to discuss particular cases. PHE works closely with the patient group Lyme Disease Action, who will also represent individuals who have trouble obtaining specialist advice, and can thus help in suggesting potential routes of referral.