Tag: Simon Kirby

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Simon Kirby on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, how many social enterprises there were in Brighton, Kemptown constituency in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Jenny Willott

BIS does not have constituency level data on social enterprises. Using data from the 2012 BIS ‘Small Business Survey’ and the ‘Business Population Estimates for the UK and Regions 2013′, BIS estimate that in 2013 approximately five per cent (or 60,000) of small and medium-sized enterprise employers[1] in the UK were social enterprises[2]. It is not possible to provide reliable information for smaller geographical areas.

[1] Small and medium-sized employers with between 1 and 249 employees.

[2] Defined as an enterprise that considers itself a social enterprise and that should not pay more than 50 per cent of profit or surplus to owners or shareholders, should not generate more than 25 per cent of income from grants and donations and, therefore, should not have less than 75 per cent of turnover from trading.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Simon Kirby on 2014-04-07.

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on ensuring that Government IT initiatives represent best value for money; and if he will make a statement.

Mr Nick Hurd

After the 2010 General Election, this Government formed the Efficiency and Reform Group to help and support departments in maximising value for money. Although responsibility for projects remains the responsibility of individual departments, we introduced strict controls to provide further scrutiny of spend including on IT projects.

These controls can and have been used by the Cabinet Office to block inappropriate spending. In 2012-13 alone these controls helped us save taxpayers over £500 million from IT, contributing to overall efficiency savings of £10billion in 2012-13 (the last year for which we have audited figures).

We have clarified our ‘red lines’ for IT procurement – these are designed to encourage competition in the sector, free the government from longstanding inflexible contracts with IT providers and ensure maximum taxpayer value. These rules include:

· we will no longer let ICT contracts over £100 million in value – unless there is an exceptional reason to do so. Contracts should be smaller to ensure the widest possible range of suppliers can compete for them.

· we will not give a contract for service provision to a company providing the system integration function in the same part of government. It’s an important way of ensuring we are an intelligent customer.

· we won’t extend existing contracts unless there is a compelling case – it’s rare to find any good reason to extend the pricing and technology of the past.

· we do not expect to let hosting contracts for more than 2 years. The cost of hosting seems to halve every 18 months. Businesses wouldn’t sign up for years upon end – and neither should government.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Simon Kirby on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the protections currently available under planning law for parcels of land which are subject to planning applications and which are close to National Parks.

Nick Boles

The Government made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that National Parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and that great weight should be placed on their conservation. In developing the planning guidance, which was published in March 2014 to support the Framework, the Government took account of feedback raised during the ‘Beta’ test phase. . The guidance, which is a material consideration in planning decisions, explains that section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires authorities to ‘have regard’ to the purpose of National Parks ‘in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land’ in National Parks. The guidance is clear that the duty is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside National Parks, but which might have an impact on the setting of, and implementation of, the statutory purposes of these protected areas.

Through the Localism Act, the Government has strengthened the role of Local Plans to shape where development should or should not go. This would allow councils to protect the countryside close to National Parks.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Simon Kirby on 2014-04-07.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps he is taking to deter inappropriate development in National Parks in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

George Eustice

Policy on national parks and planning are devolved matters. For Wales, they are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government. National parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are given the strongest protection from damaging development through the National Planning Policy Framework.

Defra works closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure planning policies take account of the special character of England’s protected landscapes. For example, as made clear on 6 March by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Nick Boles, the extended permitted development rights for conversion of agricultural buildings to a dwelling house will not apply in national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty (6 Mar 2014, Official Report, column 50WS).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Simon Kirby on 2014-04-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress his Department has made in implementing the Military Covenant; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry

There is a statutory obligation on the Defence Secretary to report annually on progress in implementing the Armed Forces Covenant. The second annual report was published in December 2013 and contains comprehensive updates on the four major areas specified in the Armed Forces Act 2011, namely healthcare, education, housing, and the operation of inquests.

I look forward to significant further progress in the coming year, including supporting Service personnel to buy their first home through the £200 milion Forces Help to Buy scheme, improving patient care by establishing a unified defence primary healthcare service, and allocating £40 million to support charities which assist veterans with housing needs.

The Covenant is not just a matter for the Government; recognising and respecting the specific needs of the Armed Forces community is a duty incumbent on the whole of society. Charities, employers, local authorities and individuals can play their role in providing the support and fair treatment that our Service personnel, veterans and service families so richly deserve.