Tag: Parliamentary Question

Jim Cunningham – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jim Cunningham on 2015-10-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recent assessment he has carried out of the ability of road infrastructure to meet future demand; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Jones

The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) published in December 2014 sets out how £15.2 billion is being invested between 2015 and 2021 to improve the Strategic Road Network (SRN) – motorways and major ‘A’ roads in England. The RIS takes into account a range of possible outcomes for the future, underpinned by broad evidence which the Department will continue to build on and review. This includes an assessment of the trends that are likely to have a significant impact on road use and what these trends mean for traffic volumes on the SRN.

On the local road network it is for local highway authorities to make assessments of need and consider improvements.

01/12/2022
Ian Murray – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Scotland Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ian Murray on 2015-10-26.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what recent representations he has received on measures to rehabilitate land which has been defaced by opencast mining; and what steps he plans to take in response to those representations.

David Mundell

I have had a number of meetings and discussions on the important issue of opencast restoration over recent months, including with Local Authorities affected and colleagues from HM Treasury, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Scottish Government.

01/12/2022
Lord Paddick – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Paddick on 2015-10-23.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to push for a global standard for mission-critical voice functionality over commercial 4G networks.

Lord Bates

The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is the international body that writes standards for 4G technology (http://www.3gpp.org/) . The Home Office has been attending a number of working groups within 3GPP since November 2012.

In January 2015 a new working group within 3GPP, SA6 Mission-critical applications was created specifically to standardise mission-critical voice functionality over 4G networks. The Home Office supported the creation of SA6, currently funds the chairman of that working group, and sends other attendees to this, as well as related meetings within 3GPP.

01/12/2022

Louise Haigh – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Louise Haigh on 2015-10-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the level of staff turnover was in (a) his Department and (b) his Department’s digital team in each of the last 12 months for which data is available.

Joseph Johnson

The turnover rate for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), including UKTI for each of the 12 months from September 2014 – August 2015, is set out in the table below.

Month	Turnover rate
Sep-14	14.3%
Oct-14	15.1%
Nov-14	15.6%
Dec-14	15.6%
Jan-15	15.1%
Feb-15	14.9%
Mar-15	15.0%
Apr-15	15.0%
May-15	15.1%
Jun-15	14.7%
Jul-15	14.8%
Aug-15	14.8%

The digital capability within BIS is not limited to a single team and is not recorded separately.

01/12/2022

Chi Onwurah – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Chi Onwurah on 2014-02-27.

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 200W, on IT: education, with which groups and organisations his Department has engaged to support the Year of the Code; and what support his Department has so provided.

Mr Nick Hurd

Cabinet Office is engaging with groups including e-skills UK, the Sector Skills Council for Business and Information Technology. This builds on ongoing work across Government to build links with schools, universities and employers.

01/12/2022
Baroness Suttie – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Suttie on 2014-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage women to apply for senior posts in the Civil Service.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Women comprise over a third of the Senior Civil Service.

Work commissioned through the Contestable Policy Fund begins in March and will identify and help to remove the blockages faced by women when applying for senior posts.

01/12/2022
Sarah Teather – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Teather on 2014-02-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will place in the Library a copy of the report entitled The medical implications of vehicle-mounted water cannon with special reference to the Ziegler Wasserwerfer 9000 (WaWe 9) system, published by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in 2013.

Damian Green

The report will be placed in the Library when the Home Secretary announces her
decision on whether to authorise water cannon for use by the police in England
and Wales.

01/12/2022

Mr Clive Betts – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Clive Betts on 2014-01-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many households in England received a weekly general, all-purpose, rubbish collection service in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.

Brandon Lewis

Labour’s legacy

The last Labour Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections and hitting hard-working families with new bin charges.Their ‘Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme’ advocated “collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”, and sought to “nationalise this policy among local authorities”. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with the zeal of a convert.

Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules; further legislation in 2008 watered down councils’ legal duties to collect rubbish. Guidance issued in 2005 advised town halls that councillors should be bullied to stop them opposing the axing of collections or proposing to restore weekly collections. It also recommended that cutting collections should be done after local elections – to avoid the nuisance of democratic opposition. The Government funded the covert imposition of “bin brother” microchips into families’ bins. The 2009 Pre-Budget Report made clear that a further wave of bin cuts were being planned. In short, the “Town Hall Talibin” doubled council tax and halved bin collections.

We disagree. This Government believes that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the £122 a month in council tax that a typical household pays (Band D), especially given the typical refuse collection service only costs councils £6 to £7 per month to provide.

What we’ve done

We have taken a series of steps to help households:

· 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;

· 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”;

· Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice;

· Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement);

· 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 “Binquisition” inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;

· Changing building regulations to tackle ‘bin blight’; and

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

In short, this has been a fundamentally different approach from the Labour Government: we are working with families to help them go green, but believe in proper, regular and comprehensive collections for taxpaying households.

The configuration of services is complex. The table below, based on available estimates from WRAP, provide the most detailed information held on the breakdown of refuse and recycling collections of ‘smelly’ rubbish across councils in England.

Weekly collections of smelly rubbish

Councils	Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste	Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual and no separate food waste collection	Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual	Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual
Jun-11	33	11	19	189	45	7
Nov-11	31	9	20	190	52	10
Jan-12	33	8	20	189	54	11
Feb-12	33	8	17	182	58	11
Aug-12	39	8	21	181	61	12
Sep-12	39	8	20	179	62	12

Households	Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste	Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly collection and no separate food waste collection	Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual	Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual
Jun-11	1,296,296	405,719	718,292	10,480,876	1,750,654	353,001
Nov-11	1,079,984	479,151	998,017	9,694,524	2,197,166	542,695
Jan-12	1,141,584	441,151	998,017	9,341,759	2,426,531	602,695
Feb-12	1,124,040	441,151	861,447	9,064,454	2,571,575	602,695
Aug-12	1,378,876	440,812	851,915	8,239,673	2,896,107	747,024
Sep-12	1,386,876	440,812	747,915	7,885,321	2,981,513	747,024

Fortnightly collections

Councils	Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual	Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection
Jun-11	36	143
Nov-11	41	142
Jan-12	41	144
Feb-12	44	149
Aug-12	47	145
Sep-12	49	147

Households	Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual	Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection
Jun-11	1,668,211	5,879,808
Nov-11	1,838,632	6,014,336
Jan-12	1,860,532	6,032,245
Feb-12	2,034,102	6,145,050
Aug-12	2,170,143	6,173,402
Sep-12	2,319,143	6,389,348

Note: Some councils may have a combination of the categories in the table below and have been counted under each one that they provide.

This shows that 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish. Had the Government not taken the actions it had, weekly collections would have disappeared in England by 2015. This simple assertion can be illustrated by the extinction of weekly collections in most of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved Administrations and policies of supporting fortnightly bin collections. Indeed, in Wales, the Labour-led Welsh Government now has a policy of supporting monthly bin collections (Welsh Government, Municipal Sector Plan Part 1, March 2011 and Welsh Government, Cabinet decision, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, Additional Funding for Zero Waste Gurnos, February 2012).

We have stopped the rot, but there is more to do to support weekly bin collections. Many town hall jobsworths, over-zealous NGOs and vested interests in the waste industry remain blindly obsessed with restricting bin collections as a perverse policy goal in itself, and this is reflected in the figures in the table above. Indeed, even Keep Britain Tidy – which one would think would want regular rubbish collections to keep the streets clean – has been taken over by a NGO (Waste Watch) which campaigns for fortnightly bin collections. Bin collections are not viewed as a public service – but as a policy tool to deliver other arbitrary policy goals.

More to do

One option which should be considered is a minimum service standard – for example, the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 already lays down minimum service requirements for recycling, and indeed, the Public Health Act 1875 introduced a duty on local authorities to collect rubbish; this duty was enhanced by the Public Health Act 1936 obliging them to collect household waste weekly which existed until 1974.

Moving forward, we are open to representations on how best to support frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service; stand up for taxpayers’ interests from arbitrary state charges and taxes; and protect the local environment, public health and local amenity from the nuisance of stinking rubbish.

01/12/2022

Fiona Bruce – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Fiona Bruce on 2013-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what powers and freedoms relating to (a) skills and employment, (b) housing and (c) economic development have been devolved since May 2010 to (i) local government and (ii) local enterprise partnerships.

Kris Hopkins

[Holding Reply: Monday 1 July 2013]

The Government is taking considerable steps to devolve power and freedom to local government and Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Through the Localism Act, councils now have the general power of competence that enables them to do anything that an individual might do, apart from that which is specifically prohibited. In addition we have radically reformed the local government finance system putting levers and incentives in the hands of local authorities, for instance:

· The removal of ring-fencing from local government grants has given councils the freedom and flexibility over the money they receive and allows them to work with their residents to decide how best to make their spending decisions to fit their local priority needs.

· rewarded places that deliver growth, through the New Homes Bonus and Business Rate Retention.

· Local authorities now directly retain 50% of business rates locally which amounts to nearly £11 billion, instead of returning it to Whitehall.

· We established five pilot Rural Growth Networks aimed at tackling the barriers to economic growth in rural areas, such as a shortage of work premises, slow internet connectivity and fragmented business networks. These pilots expect to create up to 3,000 new jobs and support up to 700 new businesses, offering a local approach to local problems. We will share the lessons they learn with other Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities to help them promote growth in other rural areas.

We have also given councils the ability to borrow against their Housing Revenue Account.

Through the city deals programme we have devolved powers and responsibilities to 26 cities. For example we have:

•provided levers to deliver the skills and jobs that local businesses and people need;

•created joint investment programmes; and

• devolved greater financial powers and incentives to invest in growth to all cities.

As we made clear in our response to Lord Heseltine’s review of Growth, we intend to go further. We have committed to negotiating Growth Deals with every Local Enterprise Partnership through which we will allocate the Local Growth Fund and negotiate broader powers, freedoms and flexibilities where a strong case for decentralisation can be made. The Local Growth Fund brings together funding from skills, housing and transport and we have committed £2 billion in 2015/16 and it will continue to be at least £2 billion a year up to 2021. The Local Growth Fund includes:
- over £6 billion of transport funding;
- £300 million of additional Housing Revenue Account borrowing;
- £50 million of Local Infrastructure Funding for housing developers; and
- £300 million skills capital funding.
We are also for the first time putting £5 billion of European Structural Investment Funds for the 2014-20 period under the strategic direction of Local Enterprise Partnerships, bringing the total resource (including the Local Growth Fund) under the control of Local Enterprise Partnerships to over £17 billion up until 2020.
01/12/2022
Sharon Hodgson – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sharon Hodgson on 2015-10-19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what the average length of a consultation period is in his Department.

Joseph Johnson

So far in this Parliament, the mean length of a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) consultation is 50 days, so just over 7 weeks. BIS consultations follow the Government’s consultation principles which can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255180/Consultation-Principles-Oct-2013.pdf

“

01/12/2022