Tag: Parliamentary Question

  • Stewart Jackson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stewart Jackson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stewart Jackson on 2014-06-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what steps he is taking to improve skill levels in the construction industry.

    Michael Fallon

    Under the auspices of the Construction Leadership Council, the house building industry is developing an action plan to address three immediate priorities: improving the image of house building; attracting back experienced workers who left during the recession; and attracting other workers with relevant skills.

    More widely, the Government is making a number of reforms to the skills system to improve skills supply; putting employers in the driving seat and making providers more responsive to their needs.

    The Government is also currently undertaking a triennial review of the way the Construction Industry Training Board operates and challenging it on the service it delivers to the sector.

    In addition, the Government believes that a more robust and more visible government construction procurement pipeline is key to improving investment decisions in construction. We are working to enhance the pipeline to give construction businesses the confidence to upskill staff, to recruit, and to commit to apprenticeships.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    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 potential additional cost to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Appeals Service if a 25 per cent discount on the full price of their parking ticket is given to motorists who lose an appeal against that parking ticket at tribunal.

    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.

  • Emma Reynolds – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Emma Reynolds – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emma Reynolds on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many community groups have exercised the Community Right to Build.

    Stephen Williams

    A key priority for the Coalition Government has been to give communities greater control over shaping the development of their area. The Localism Act 2011 created new powers for communities to write their own neighbourhood plans and to gain planning permission for community-led development through Neighbourhood Development Orders and Community Right to Build Orders.

    Nearly 1,400 communities, covering six million people, are now engaged at different stages of the neighbourhood planning process, giving millions of people the chance to participate in identifying, and voting on, where development takes place and what it looks like. All 52 referendums held to date have resulted in big ‘yes’ votes and 34 plans have been ‘made’ (brought into force) and therefore are part of the development plan, the starting point for determining planning applications.

    The popularity of neighbourhood planning has shown that when given the opportunity, communities are keen to shape future development in their areas, and we expect the number of community-led developments to increase as more neighbourhood plans are finalised. Over the last two years there have been over 3,100 enquiries and 14,000 web hits relating to the Community Right to Build. The Community Right to Build gives communities the freedom to build new homes, shops, businesses or facilities where they want them, without going through the normal planning application process. Experience has shown that following discussions with the local planning authority for community-led development proposals, community groups have chosen to submit a planning application for their project, rather than a Community Right to Build Order.

    To ensure groups undertaking community-led development have the right support and advice to gain planning approval, we broadened the remit of available support funding to assist community groups to bring forward development either through Community Right to Build Orders or community-led planning applications.

    This has led to significant take up of funding for community-led projects coming forward, with over 100 applications for funding already approved by the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority. Locality and their partners have also been working with 60 groups to provide assistance and advice.

    The first three referendums for Community Right to Build Orders took place in December, all of which were passed and are now in force.

    We have allocated a further £3.5 million to support the Community Right to Build and community-led planning applications for housing in 2015-18. On 17 February, my department announced a further £6 million funding boost to the community rights programme. This new funding will mean:

    • like-minded communities will be able to network and learn from each other through the new My Community Network;
    • communities will have access to tailored advice through a phone and online advice service to help them use the range of community rights and other neighbourhood approaches;
    • 100 more neighbourhoods will be supported to use the Our Place approach, enabling councils and other public sector providers, voluntary and community groups, local businesses and the community to work together to tackle important local issues from job creation to health priorities;
    • 100 communities will receive support to take the first steps in identifying important local issues and develop Community Action Plans;
    • 50 communities will receive support to develop economic plans to address local economic priorities like job creation and enterprise;
    • 50 local authority/community partnerships will receive advice, support and grants to support the transfer of multiple or complex publicly owned assets into community ownership; and
    • 6 new contracts have been awarded to external partners to support communities in using the community rights in 2015-16.

  • Caroline Flint – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Caroline Flint – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Flint on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, how much the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s Site Licence Companies spent on support and overhead costs in (a) 2010-11, (b) 2011-12, (c) 2012-13 and (d) 2013-14.

    Matthew Hancock

    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s expenditure on support costs, as defined for the purposes of the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Annual Report and Accounts, was £739m in 2010-11, £800m in 2011-12, £801m in 2012-13 and £814m in 2013-14. The definition includes research and technology, IT, security, facilities, programme management, procurement, human resources, finance, head-office costs, EHS&Q (environment, health safety and quality), regulatory engagement and communications.

  • Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    Cathy Jamieson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Cathy Jamieson on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the accommodation of young people from Scotland in secure units in England.

    Andrew Selous

    The Youth Justice Board (YJB) are responsible for placing young people under 18 years of age in custody in England and Wales, and make every effort to place them as close to home as possible. The appropriate placement of young people into the secure estate is undertaken on a case-by-case basis and is based upon a combination of factors unique to each young person entering custody.

    According to the most recent snapshot of data held by the National Offenders Management Service (NOMS), taken in September 2014, there was one young person ordinarily resident in Scotland being accommodated in an under-18 Young Offender Institution in England and Wales. Information about where this young person was held cannot be disclosed as this could possibly result in the identification of the offender, which could lead to a potential breach of the Data Protection Act.

    In snapshots taken each September between 2010 and 2013, there were no young people ordinarily resident in Scotland being accommodated in under-18s Young Offender Institutions in England and Wales. There is no data held for Secure Children’s Homes and Secure Training Centres.

    There have been no recent discussions between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Government on the accommodation of young people from Scotland in the youth secure estate in England.

  • Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Stephen Timms – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what changes he has made to his Department’s policies or procedures in response to those representations about the adequacy of his Department’s hardship payments scheme.

    Esther McVey

    Following the recommendations of the Oakley Review of sanctions (published July 2014), Jobcentre Plus offices have improved claimants’ awareness of hardship when a sanction applies to their benefit.

    Jobcentre Plus has undertaken a comprehensive review of the Hardship process. This has focused on strengthening information provided to claimants throughout their engagement with us. All claimants are informed about the application process before a sanction decision is made and before any benefit reduction. Assistance is also provided with the application process where required. We have also sped up the hardship process so all payments are made within 3 days.

    Vulnerable claimants can continue to apply for hardship payments immediately.

  • Roberta Blackman-Woods – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Roberta Blackman-Woods – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Roberta Blackman-Woods on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the amount of undeveloped brownfield land which his Department considers suitable for development.

    Brandon Lewis

    The National Land Use Database provides data from local authorities on all previously developed land in England that may be available for development.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-land-use-database-of-previously-developed-land-nlud-pdl

    “

  • Julian Huppert – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Julian Huppert – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Huppert on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the potential effect of the loss of state funding by the ACRE Network on that organisation’s ability to deliver support to rural communities.

    Dan Rogerson

    We value the work that the ACRE Network does at the local level to ensure the rural voice is heard and to inspire community action. Future funding is being carefully considered and no final decision has yet been made. No assessment has therefore been prepared.

  • Tim Farron – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tim Farron – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tim Farron on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent representations he has made to his counterpart in the government of Afghanistan on ensuring that adequate training is available to national security forces following the UK’s withdrawal of military personnel from combat roles in that country.

    Mr Mark Francois

    As part of the broader NATO mission, the UK is delivering on its commitment to continue to support the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). The UK has taken the lead at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy, where we are helping the Afghans to take control of developing their next generation of military leaders and sustain progress in building a capable and professional force. We are also providing advisors to the Afghan Security Ministries and have committed £70 million per year until at least 2017 to support ANSF development.

  • Pauline Latham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Pauline Latham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pauline Latham on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans NHS England has to respond to patient groups and charities who are concerned about the removal of clinically effective drugs from the Cancer Drugs Fund.

    George Freeman

    NHS England has advised that a meeting with patient groups and charities was held on 19 January 2015 to provide the context for the changes being made to the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) list, how the review was undertaken by the CDF clinical panel and the results. Attendees had the opportunity to ask questions to provide further clarity.

    Information on the outcomes from the review is available on NHS England’s website at:

    www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/pe/cdf

    and has been circulated to NHS England networks. Clinicians are also being informed via the regional CDF teams.

    “