Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed question first answered question first ministerially corrected answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

100630

	registered interest
	date	23/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Transport
	answering dept id	27
	answering dept short name	Transport
	answering dept sort name	Transport
	hansard heading	Railways: North West
	house id	2
	legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
	question text	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for improving inter-regional rail links in the North West of England, particularly between East Lancashire and Greater Manchester.
	tabling member printed	Baroness Massey of Darwen
	uin	HL2361
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The case for improving inter-regional rail links in the North West of England has been assessed in a number of studies including the Northern Hub and Network Rail’s Lancashire and Cumbria and North-West Route Utilisation strategies. The case will be further addressed in respect of Network Rail’s Control Period 6 (2019-20<ins class="ministerial">2</ins><del class="ministerial">1</del>4) and beyond through the Northern Route Study as part of Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Process to inform decisions on the Government’s Rail Investment Strategy for Control Period 6.</p> answering member printed Baroness Kramer question first answered 30/10/2014 12:12:57 question first ministerially corrected 05/11/2014 12:17:05 answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer previous answer version 25208 answering member printed Baroness Kramer answering member 1557 label Biography information for Baroness Kramer
	tabling member	2489 label Biography information for Baroness Massey of Darwen

92880

	registered interest
	date	13/10/2014
	answering body	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept id	90
	answering dept short name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept sort name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	hansard heading	Members: Allowances
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, on what criteria additional staff allowances other than for staff sickness or maternity leave are given to hon. Members.
	tabling member constituency	Colchester
	tabling member printed	Sir Bob Russell
	uin	210218
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply.</p><p><em>Letter from Marcial Boo, October 2014:</em></p><p>As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about the criteria for additional staffing expenditure budget.</p><p><em>The MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses</em> sets out the criteria for contingency funding in Chapter 10. We consider applications for additional funding for staffing or non-staffing costs on a case-by-case basis and take into account the following criteria:</p><ul><li>whether there are exceptional circumstances warranting additional support;</li><li>whether the MP could reasonably have been expected to take any action to avoid the circumstances which gave rise to the expenditure or liability; and</li><li>whether the MP's performance of his or her parliamentary functions would be significantly impaired by a refusal of the claim.</li></ul><p> </p> answering member constituency Broxbourne answering member printed Mr Charles Walker question first answered 30/10/2014 13:16:51 answering member 1493 label Biography information for Sir Charles Walker
	tabling member	35 label Biography information for Sir Bob Russell

92881

	registered interest
	date	13/10/2014
	answering body	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept id	90
	answering dept short name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept sort name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	hansard heading	Members' Staff
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, what comparative estimate the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has made of the cost to the public purse of providing accommodation for hon. Members' staff in (a) constituency offices and (b) the parliamentary estate.
	tabling member constituency	Colchester
	tabling member printed	Sir Bob Russell
	uin	210217
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply.</p><p><em>Letter from Marcial Boo, October 2014:</em></p><p>As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about office accommodation for MPs' staff.</p><p>We have not conducted such a comparative estimate.</p><p>Under the <em>MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses</em>, MPs may choose where to locate their staff, based on how they wish to carry out their parliamentary functions. If an MP chooses to base some or all of his or her staff in the constituency, the costs associated with office rental may be charged to the MP’s Office Costs Expenditure budget (administered and paid for by IPSA). Costs associated with provision of an office on the Parliamentary estate are borne by the House of Commons centrally.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Broxbourne answering member printed Mr Charles Walker question first answered 30/10/2014 13:16:35 answering member 1493 label Biography information for Sir Charles Walker
	tabling member	35 label Biography information for Sir Bob Russell

93649

	registered interest
	date	15/10/2014
	answering body	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept id	90
	answering dept short name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	answering dept sort name	Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
	hansard heading	Members' Staff
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, how many responses were received to IPSA's public consultation on MPs staffing allocations; of these, how many related to internships; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of that consultation.
	tabling member constituency	Colchester
	tabling member printed	Sir Bob Russell
	uin	210656
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply.</p><p><em>Letter from Marcial Boo, October 2014:</em></p><p>As Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking about IPSA's consultation on the staffing expenditure budget.</p><p>IPSA last consulted the public and MPs on the composition of the staffing expenditure budget in November 2011. We asked on what basis we should calculate the staffing expenditure budget and whether we should take into account factors such as the relative deprivation of the constituency. The relevant consultation question received 45 responses, four of which mentioned interns. All of our public consultations and the responses are available on our website <a href="http://www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk/" target="_blank">www.parliamentarystandards.org.uk</a></p><p>Following the consultation, for 2012-13 we increased MPs’ staffing expenditure budgets by 19% for non-London Area MPs and 25 per cent for London Area MPs.</p><p>We have reviewed the level of the staffing expenditure budget as part of subsequent annual reviews and further increased the budget by 1 per cent this year. For 2014-15 the budget is £138,600 for non-London Area MPs and £145,500 for London Area MPs.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Broxbourne answering member printed Mr Charles Walker question first answered 30/10/2014 13:15:53 answering member 1493 label Biography information for Sir Charles Walker
	tabling member	35 label Biography information for Sir Bob Russell

101052

	registered interest
	date	27/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Refuges
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what funding his Department provides to women's refuges.
	tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
	tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
	uin	212030
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>I refer the rt. hon. Member to my written answer of 28 October 2014, PQs 211433, 211434 and 211435.</p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins question first answered 30/10/2014 16:32:34 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
	tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

91254

	registered interest
	date	09/09/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Public Health: Finance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the full-year expenditure in each identified category of the Ring-fenced Public Health Grant was for (a) each local authority and (b) England in 2013-14.
	tabling member constituency	Liverpool, Wavertree
	tabling member printed	Luciana Berger
	uin	208799
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>This information was published in August, as part of the Revenue Outturn (RO3) statistical returns, and can be found online at:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2013-to-2014-individual-local-authority-data-outturn" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2013-to-2014-individual-local-authority-data-outturn</a></p><p>This is the first year that such data has been published, following the new responsibilities being passed to local authorities.</p><p> </p><ul><li>The new data is provisional, as reported by local authorities.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Shire districts will be listed with zero entries, as they do not have responsibility for public health.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>At the time of publication forms had not been received from Sefton and Southwark local authorities. The England totals shown include imputed values for these authorities.</li></ul><p> </p><ul><li>Some upper-tier authorities may have zero entries for some columns due to the manner in which the information has been initially provided by the local authority, by filling in the forms without the necessary detail. I would therefore suggest caution about making comparisons on the categories of expenditure between local authorities, based on the new draft data in its current form.</li></ul><p> </p><p>We are continuing to work to validate and improve it, and to follow up data anomalies with local authorities in partnership with Public Health England.</p><p> </p><p>Final, validated, outturn data will be published later this year.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins question first answered 30/10/2014 17:08:52 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins previous answer version 19793 answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
	tabling member	4036 label Biography information for Luciana Berger

93117

	registered interest
	date	14/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Torbay
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many visits were made by Ministers of his Department to Torbay constituency in the 12 months to 14 October 2014; whom the invitation for each such visit was issued by; and what the cost to the public purse was of each such visit.
	tabling member constituency	Torbay
	tabling member printed	Mr Adrian Sanders
	uin	210474
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>In the last 12 months, Ministers have not had the opportunity to visit the Parliamentary constituency of Torbay, but they have visited the local authority area of Torbay. We are open to further invitations, subject to Ministerial and Parliamentary commitments.</p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins question first answered 30/10/2014 16:58:24 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
	tabling member	237 label Biography information for Mr Adrian Sanders

89999

	registered interest
	date	01/09/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Housing: Construction
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the number of dwellings with planning permission that are classified as (a) progressing towards a start, (b) on hold or shelved and (c) started on site in the latest period for which figures are available.
	tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
	tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
	uin	207630
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The Coalition Government has kick-started house building, taken a series of initiatives to get stalled sites building, and reformed the planning system to help deliver more homes and increase local decision making. In the last twelve months to Q2 2014, a total of 230,000 permissions were given for new homes across England (estimates based on Glenigan data for all sites).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>Falling number of stalled sites</em></p><p>As has been repeatedly explained to the rt. hon. Member in previous answers on this topic, the number of dwellings with planning permission that are classified as “on hold or shelved” has steadily fallen thanks to the action this Government is taking. This is illustrated in the table below.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Snapshot as of:</em></p></td><td><p><em>On hold/shelved</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2011</p></td><td><p>79,604</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>July 2011</p></td><td><p>82,557</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2011</p></td><td><p>90,331</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>December 2011</p></td><td><p>87,081</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>March 2012</p></td><td><p>81,502</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2012</p></td><td><p>75,534</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2012</p></td><td><p>70,495</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2013</p></td><td><p>64,394</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2013</p></td><td><p>61,476</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2013</p></td><td><p>60,493</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>October 2013</p></td><td><p>59,249</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2014</p></td><td><p>55,847</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>February 2014</p></td><td><p>54,086</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>March 2014</p></td><td><p>53,376</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2014</p></td><td><p>51,284</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2014</p></td><td><p>50,050</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2014</p></td><td><p>48,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><sub>Note: Based on estimates from Glenigan for sites with unimplemented permissions in England. Dwellings on sites with 10 units or more; excludes sites which have been sold, were due to be sold, or else information not available. This data comes from a live database that is constantly revised, and as result figures for a given month can fluctuate slightly. </sub><sub>September 2014 rounded to the nearest thousand.</sub></p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>Rising number of starts and near-starts</em></p><p>As of 1 September 2014, a further 267,000 units had started on site. In addition, the number of dwellings with planning permission that are moving towards a start has steadily increased, both due to the action we have taken to tackle stalled sites, but also crucially due to the underlying increase in the number of homes being granted planning permission.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Snapshot as of:</em></p></td><td><p><em>Progressing towards start</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2011</p></td><td><p>113,566</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>July 2011</p></td><td><p>153,379</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2011</p></td><td><p>153,543</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>December 2011</p></td><td><p>132,633</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>March 2012</p></td><td><p>136,686</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2012</p></td><td><p>141,044</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2012</p></td><td><p>166,105</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2013</p></td><td><p>176,246</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2013</p></td><td><p>184,987</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2013</p></td><td><p>189,882</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>October 2013</p></td><td><p>183,650</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2014</p></td><td><p>202,912</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>February 2014</p></td><td><p>194,681</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>March 2014</p></td><td><p>203,098</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2014</p></td><td><p>197,288</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>June 2014</p></td><td><p>226,328</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>September 2014</p></td><td><p>244,000</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><sub>Note: Methodology as per table above. September 2014 figure rounded to the nearest thousand.</sub></p><p>A rising number of homes progressing towards a start is a positive indicator of increasing housing construction. Contrary to the incorrect claims of the Labour Party, it is not a measure of “land banking” nor is it “houses where nothing is happening”, rather it is a reflection of the detailed work being undertaken, red tape being navigated and finance being raised in order to turn a council planning permission into a construction site.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>Action to kick-start house building</em></p><p>Steps we have or are taking to get stalled sites moving include:</p><p> </p><p>· Introducing measures in the Infrastructure Bill to reduce bureaucracy on implementing planning conditions after planning permission has been granted.</p><p> </p><p>· Implementing the recommendations of the Penfold Review to consolidate the overlapping and confusing regime of non-planning consents, on top of planning permission.</p><p> </p><p>· Allowing developers to review economically unrealistic Section 106 agreements, through the Growth and Infrastructure Act. Such unrealistic agreements result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits: a sensible review can result in more housing and more affordable housing.</p><p> </p><p>· Ending the temporary measure (introduced by the last Administration) which allowed developers to roll forward their planning permissions; this ending of the measure has now increased the incentive for developers to start on site before their permission expires.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Investment we have provided includes:</p><p> </p><p>· The Get Britain Building investment fund, providing over £500 million of finance which has so far helped start over 12,000 new homes on stalled sites.</p><p> </p><p>· The Growing Places Fund is providing £730 million to deliver the infrastructure needed to unlock stalled schemes that will promote economic growth, create jobs and build homes. This is supporting approximately 70,000 new housing units, as well as significant amounts of extra commercial and industrial floor space.</p><p><br>· The £474 million Local Infrastructure Fund investment fund is supporting the delivery of upfront infrastructure for locally-supported, large-scale housing sites and commercial development; it also provides capacity funding and brokerage support to local authorities to help them progress major schemes through the planning process. Nearly 90,000 homes have been unlocked, so far.</p><p><br>· The £3 million Site Delivery Fund is being made available to 66 local planning authorities to accelerate starts on site</p><p><br>· The £525 million Builders' Finance Fund is assisting small and medium-sized developers to access finance to support the delivery of housing schemes of between 15 and 250 units, helping kick-start stalled sites and deliver around 15,000 units over four years.</p><p><br>· Growth Deals with 39 Local Enterprise Partnerships are providing £6 billion of funding over six years (including over £3 billion for projects starting in 2015-16), all with substantial implications for house building. Over the lifetime of Growth Deals (six years), it is estimated the investment will unlock the land or finance for more than 150,000 homes, just from the projects that will start next year in 2015-16.</p><p><br>- In addition, we are taking forward a comprehensive programme to sell surplus and redundant public sector land and property, freeing up taxpayers’ money and providing land for new homes.</p><p><br><br></p><p> </p><p>Taken together, these indicators show that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working and turning around the mess and recession left by the last Labour Government. Moth-balled sites are springing into action; more homes are being planned; and more homes are being built out.</p><p> </p><p>However, the policy solutions now being advocated by HM Opposition would actually have an adverse effect in reducing house building. If developers fear new development taxes or state confiscation of land, they will be less willing to undertake complex land assembly projects; they will let their existing planning permissions lapse; and they will simply be more cautious in applying for planning permission in the first place. The result would be a slower planning system and fewer new homes.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 30/10/2014 17:26:01 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 18186 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
	tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

90005

	registered interest
	date	01/09/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Housing: Construction
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 14 July 2014, Official Report, column 531W, on housing: construction, what estimate he has made of the number of dwellings with planning permission that were classed as having started on site on each of the dates provided.
	tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
	tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
	uin	207599
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The figures are below.</p><p> </p><p>These estimates only relate to large sites (10+ dwellings) in England, based on Glenigan data. Precise figures will fluctuate from month to month, but there is a clear upward trend.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Snapshot as of:</em></p></td><td><p><em>Started</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-11</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jul-11</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-11</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Dec-11</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mar-12</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-12</p></td><td><p>Not available</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>241,610</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-13</p></td><td><p>246,020</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Apr-13</p></td><td><p>236,270</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-13</p></td><td><p>231,411</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Oct-13</p></td><td><p>249,942</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-14</p></td><td><p>264,945</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-14</p></td><td><p>270,318</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Mar-14</p></td><td><p>273,373</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Apr-14</p></td><td><p>280,857</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-14</p></td><td><p>271,431</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-14</p></td><td><p>267,277</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>I also refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer of today, PQ 207630, on the rising number of sites near to a start, and the falling number of sites which are stalled/on hold.</p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 30/10/2014 17:13:33 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis previous answer version 18196 answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
	tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

100783

	registered interest
	date	23/10/2014
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name	Communities and Local Government
	answering dept sort name	Communities and Local Government
	hansard heading	Housing: Carbon Emissions
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether, in delivery of the Zero Carbon Homes policy, house builders can contract with a third party to deliver the carbon abatement measures outside of the built environment in (a) renewable energy technologies, (b) carbon capture and storage and (c) nuclear power in order to meet the house builder's zero carbon obligation.
	tabling member constituency	Newport West
	tabling member printed	Paul Flynn
	uin	211768
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 30/10/2014 answer text <p>The Government intends to adopt a flexible approach to defining the off site carbon abatement measures (allowable solutions) which can be supported by house builders to meet their zero carbon obligation and not apply restrictions which would rule out innovative, cost effective approaches. The Government’s consultation on “Next Steps to Zero Carbon – Allowable Solutions” set out examples of potential measures which could be supported, including renewable energy measures. The Government has not considered support for carbon capture and storage or nuclear power in the context of allowable solutions. However, the criteria based approach set out in the consultation for identifying appropriate carbon abatement measures would require that measures will need to bring forward additional, verifiable carbon savings at a cost effective price. Given carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power, would have high upfront costs, they would be unlikely to be cost-effective.</p> answering member constituency Bristol West answering member printed Stephen Williams question first answered 30/10/2014 16:37:28 answering member 1492 label Biography information for Stephen Williams
	tabling member	545 label Biography information for Paul Flynn