|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Paragraph 10 of the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill makes clear, that the regulatory impact unit of the Cabinet Office (now known as the Better Regulation Executive) confirmed that no regulatory impact assessment was required.
29 Nov 2005 : Column 363W
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to co-ordinate the response of fire and rescue services with other emergency services; and if he will make a statement. 
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Fire and Rescue National Framework 200506 requires all Fire and Rescue Authorities in England to have in place robust plans for integrated command and control of major incidents, and to co-ordinate these both with other emergency services and with non-emergency responders such as local authorities and the Environment Agency.
Guidance on a consistent operational approach is provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Fire Officers' Association and by the Cabinet Office, and is kept under continuing review.
|Retained duty system firefighters||Whole-time firefighters|
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent staff were employed by each Government office of the regions in each year since 199697; and what the estimated figures are for 200506. 
Yvette Cooper: The total number of staff employed in each Government office on 31 March for each year from 1997 to 2005 and the latest figures for end September 2005 is as follows. Full-time equivalents are not available:
|East of England||173||169||163||176||178||189||235||271||277||276|
|Yorkshire and the Humber||260||249||233||270||255||264||283||312||307||285|
Anne Milton: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has commissioned into the (a) background, (b) sex, (c) socio-economic status and (d) ethnic origin of people who respond to planning applications. 
Yvette Cooper: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not conducted research into the ethnic, gender, or social background of third parties who comment on planning applications, nor on the results of planning applications.
Norman Baker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he treats the provisions relating to the correction of errors in decisions set out in part five of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as applying to decisions made as a result of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and whether he treats the 2000 Act as a planning act for the purposes of part five of the 2004 Act. 
Yvette Cooper: The power to correct errors in decisions contained in part 5 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 relates only to the errors in decision documents set out in section 59(4). Decision made under the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000are not listed in section 59(4). The planning Acts" in section 59(4)(h) is defined by section 117(4) and does not include the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000.
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the street crime wardens funding stream from the Government office for London was made available to the London borough of Croydon in 200405. 
Mr. Woolas: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has used both district level and super output area (SOA) level data to allocate the new Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) resources. As well as, the district level summaries of the Indices of Deprivation 2004 (ID04) to determine which areas should be eligible for NRF because this data take into account the extent of deprivation across a local authority as a whole.
SOA data have also been used to allocate Neighbourhood Element of the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF (NE)) worth £160 million over four years 200610 and the Cleaner Safer Greener (CSG) element of SSCF, worth an additional £105 million for the two years 200608. This brings together a total package of nearly £1.3 billion to help local authorities and their partners in narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country.
Yvette Cooper: Planning policy guidance note 8: 'Telecommunications' (PPG8), makes clear the expectation that developers should provide evidence to local planning authorities that they have carefully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast, regardless of size. The authority may be justified in refusing prior approval or planning permissions if it considers the evidence regarding the consideration of such alternative sites is not satisfactory.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|