|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission for what reasons the Boundary Committee for England did not select the East Suffolk/West Suffolk/Ipswich pattern as a formal option for consultation in its structural review of Suffolk local government. 
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that the Boundary Committee considered that an East Suffolk/West Suffolk/Ipswich pattern would, on the basis of the information before it, be unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the outcomes specified by the Secretary of State's five criteria.
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission for what reasons the Boundary Committee for England's March 2009 consultation on preferred patterns for the future of local government in Suffolk proposed an additional public service village in Stowmarket in the rural authority in the pattern B option; and for what reasons such a village was not proposed in the pattern A option. 
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that in its further draft proposal report the Boundary Committee outlined potential arrangements to deliver the outcomes specified by the Secretary of State's five criteria.
One of these arrangements is for a pattern of service delivery villages. These are centres typically providing shared local offices for public sector service providers, intended to encourage shared solutions to local problems. In pattern A, which is a unitary county authority, the committee proposed locating the public service villages in the three largest towns: Ipswich, Bury St. Edmunds and Lowestoft. In pattern B, the committee requested views on whether the town of Stowmarket would be an appropriate location for a public service village, serving residents living in the centre of Suffolk, bearing in mind that Ipswich would be included in a separate unitary authority.
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission whether the Boundary Committee for England has determined Lowestoft to be (a) an urban area and (b) a market town. 
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that its Boundary Committee has not determined Lowestoft to be either an urban area or a market town for the purposes of its further draft proposals for unitary local government in Suffolk. It is not the committee's remit to decide how an area should be defined.
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the (a) final severance package and (b) pension arrangements were for the previous chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels plc. 
In line with the company's standard terms of employment, the outgoing chief executive of BNFL, Mike Parker CBE, is entitled to a redundancy payment equivalent to one times his basic salary. There are no other severance related payments due to him. There are no BNFL pension arrangements for Mike Parker; he does not participate in the BNFL pension scheme and the company has not made contributions to any other pension scheme on his behalf.
John Thurso: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what mechanism exists for the co-ordination of measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from Government Departments' data centres. 
The Government Chief Information Officer Council is co-ordinating measures to implement the Greening Government ICT Strategy published last July. The strategy includes early actions to increase the average server capacity utilisation, which will reduce the overall level of carbon dioxide emissions in data centres and accord with the European Code of Conduct. The CIO Council are also working with the Public Sector Council of Intellect, the trade association for the high technology industries, on a forward strategy for Government data centres to reduce costs and carbon emissions.
Mr. Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of extending eligibility for the £200 annual winter fuel payment to all people with spinal cord injuries. 
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many times the National Resilience Forum on Flooding has met since it was established; and if he will make a statement; 
The National Resilience Forum has not yet met. In December, in the Governments reply to Sir Michael Pitts Review, we said that the aim would be for an inaugural meeting in the first half of 2009. The National Security Forum has since met for the first time, in March, which has helped us review proposals for the National Resilience Forum. Detailed proposals and the issue of invitations will commence as soon as possible after this review is complete.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 2 April 2009, Official Report, column 1302W, on floods: property development, how many local planning authorities are considered by the Environment Agency not to have complied with planning policy statement 25 in each of the last five years. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The Environment Agency has advised that the number of planning applications given planning permission against its advice on flood risk grounds over the past five years, and the number of local planning authorities (LPAs) this represented, is as follows:
|Total number of planning applications permitted against Environment Agency advice on flood risk||Total n umber of LPAs granting planning permission against an Environment Agency flood risk objection|
Planning policy statement (PPS) 25, Development and Flood Risk, was published in December 2006. Prior to that date, national planning policy on development and flood risk was set out in planning policy guidance note 25. These policies apply only to England.
It is for the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan for the area, taking account of the particular circumstances of each application and subject to other material planning considerations.
Further detailed information about the extent to which local planning authorities have taken account of the Environment Agencys advice on flood risk is set out in the Environment Agencys annual Development and Flood Risk monitoring report. The most recent report was published in February 2009, covering the period 2007-08. This shows that where flood risk was an issue, around 96 per cent. of all planning application decisions, as notified to the Environment Agency, were in line with the Environment Agencys advice.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water abstraction licences for hydro-electric schemes the Environment Agency has (a) received an application for, (b) issued and (c) refused in (i) England and (ii) Wales in each of the last three years. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The number of abstraction licence applications received and new abstraction licences granted for hydropower schemes are given in the following table. The Environment Agency introduced a national Water Resources authorisations receipt tracking system in November 2008. As a result, data on the number of applications received and refused are only available from November 2008 onwards. Prior to this, information was not held centrally. To collate pre-2008 data would incur disproportionate costs.
|Applications received||Licences refused||Licences issued|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of 27 February 2009, Official Report, column 1196W, on departmental buildings, to what use the ministerial residence within 1 Carlton Gardens has been put. 
Gillian Merron: The ministerial residence within 1 Carlton Gardens has not been used since 16 October 2007 but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office uses the function rooms of 1 Carlton Gardens for a range of events hosted by Ministers and senior officials, as well as other departmental meetings.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Pakistani Government on minimisation of civilian casualties during military operations in Buner and Lower Dir. 
[holding answer 7 May 2009]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the situation in North West Frontier province with Foreign Minister Qureshi on 25 April 2009. As part of our wider defence engagement programme, we will continue our efforts to build the capacity of the Pakistani military to mount effective operations that minimise civilian casualties. The UK is also helping the Government of Pakistan to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of those most directly affected by insecurity. We have so
far dispersed £2 million and have recently committed an additional £10 million. Our funds are being channelled through humanitarian agencies on the ground to give food supplies and shelter to those most in need, as well as supplying essential water and sanitation and basic health care.
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department holds on the deployment of armed US Predator unmanned aerial vehicles from airbases within Pakistan. 
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had recent discussions with the Government of Pakistan on the deployment of armed US Predator unmanned aerial vehicles within Pakistani airspace. 
Mr. Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex of 27 April 2009, Official Report, column 1030W, on Afghanistan: peacekeeping operations, what the dates were of the secondment of each UK official to the US-led review of American defence and security policy; and if he will make a statement. 
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the possibility of formulating a long-term conservation framework with a natural conservation area in the British Indian Ocean Territory. 
Gillian Merron: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Administration are committed to high standards of environmental protection in BIOT. There is a legislative framework, protection of sites and species of particular importance, and designated reserves (an area of Diego Garcia has been designated as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands). These have contributed to the very high levels of nature conservation achieved in the territory.
The FCO and BIOT Administration are keen to explore options for further enhancing levels of environmental protection in BIOT and welcome the interest expressed, for example, by the Chagos Environment Network who have recently proposed the establishment of a large-scale Marine Protected Area.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|