DOCSLIB.ORG

Consultation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Introduction of a Heavy Goods Vehicles Safety Standard as part of the Direct Vision Standard Consultation results June 2018 Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 Consultation methodology ............................................................................................... 2 3 Methodology for analysis of consultation responses ....................................................... 3 4 Analysis of responses to closed questions ...................................................................... 3 5. Analysis of responses to open question ........................................................................ 24 6 Responses from stakeholders ....................................................................................... 30 7 Next steps ..................................................................................................................... 31 Appendix A - Press advertisement ........................................................................................... 32 Appendix B – List of stakeholders consulted ............................................................................ 33 Appendix C – Stakeholder email .............................................................................................. 40 1 1 Introduction Between16 November 2017 and 24 January 2018, we consulted on proposals to introduce a Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) Safety Standard Permit as part of the Direct Vision Standard (DVS) to reduce road danger. This forms part of the Mayor’s commitment to the adoption of a ‘Vision Zero’ approach. This document summarises the results of the consultation. About the proposals In 2016, HGVs were involved in disproportionately high numbers of fatal collisions with cyclists (50 per cent) and pedestrians (23 per cent) on London’s streets, despite only making up four per cent of road miles driven in London. HGV blind spots have been identified as a major contributory factor in these collisions. The DVS is intended to help address HGV driver blind spots. Using a star system, the standard rates HGVs from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest), based on how much a HGV driver can see directly through their cab windows, as opposed to indirectly through cameras or mirrors. We previously consulted in early 2017 on the principles of a standard for Direct Vision. Listening to the feedback from this consultation, and working closely with industry and stakeholders we further developed the scheme. During the last phase of consultation, we sought views on proposals to introduce a Safety Standard Permit Scheme as part of DVS. This proposal widens our approach beyond direct vision and includes a safe system to allow a broader range of road danger risks to be addressed. The proposals in the latest consultation set out that: • All HGVs over 12 tonnes will be required to hold a Safety Permit to operate in Greater London from 2020. • HGVs will be given a rating between ‘zero-star’ (lowest) and ‘five-star’ (highest). • Only those vehicles rated ‘one star’ and above would be allowed to enter of operate in London from 2020. • Zero rated vehicles would only be allowed if they can prove compliance through safe system measures. • By 2024 only ‘three-star’ rated HGVs would meet the DVS star rating requirement for a Safety Permit. HGVs rated two star and below would need to demonstrate increased safety through progressive safe system measures to be granted permit. The safe system includes specific industry recognised measures such as camera monitoring systems, class V and VI mirrors, sensor systems with driver alerts, audible and visual warnings of intended manoeuvre and side under-run protection. The HGV Safety Standard Permit scheme would evolve over time, taking into account advances in technology. 1 About the consultation Questions were asked about the star rating system and boundaries between one to five stars. Further questions were asked about the HGV Safety Standard Permit and the proposals to set a one star standard in 2020 and three star standard in 2024. The consultation also asked for views on the principles of direct vision and associated impact on road risk. We also asked detailed questions relating to the development and operation of the scheme, including a number of open questions. The consultation ran from 16 November 2017 to 24 January 2018. Details of the proposals are available at www.tfl.gov.uk/direct-vision-standard About the results We received 2,498 responses to the consultation from the general public and 37 stakeholder responses. The responses were received either through the consultation portal, by email or by letter. Of the responses received, 91% agreed or strongly agreed that the amount a HGV driver can see directly through the cab’s windows plays a role in collisions with vulnerable road users and 92% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the amount that drivers could see should be improved to reduce road risk. 79% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed star ratings boundaries and 88% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal to introduce a permit scheme. A more detailed analysis of the results is shown in the following chapters of this report. 2 Consultation methodology Who was consulted The consultation was open to all. Details of the scheme were available to view on the TfL consultation portal. TfL also wrote to a number of key stakeholders directly to seek their views. This included stakeholders such as London Boroughs and freight organisations. Please refer to Appendix B for a full stakeholder list and Appendix C for a copy of the stakeholder email. Consultation material, distribution and publicity To raise awareness of the consultation, we issued a press release which was also featured on the TfL website. 2 We also advertised in a number of pan-London and trade titles. Please refer to Appendix A. 3 Methodology for analysis of consultation responses We appointed an independent consultancy to undertake much of the analysis work on our behalf. This included all of the analysis for the general public including closed and open questions. They also reviewed all of the stakeholder responses and provided summaries of these. This analysis can be reviewed later on in this report. Analysis of closed questions The consultation questions were tailored in order to ascertain feedback on specific policy areas and proposals. All of the questions were open to anyone to respond. Analysis of open questions Code frames were developed to structure the analysis of responses to the open questions (questions 4, 14, 18 and 22). A code frame was developed to analyse comments broken down into themes. 4 Analysis of responses to closed questions This analysis includes 2,498 responses, consisting of responses received from the general public. Closed questions fell into two categories: • Questions which allowed only one response and were answered on a scale e.g. from strongly agree through to strongly disagree • Questions which allowed more than one option to be selected The responses were assessed against a percentage of responses. Note however, that the questions allowed multiple options to be selected, and do not therefore necessarily add up to 100%, as the options are not mutually exclusive. Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the amount a HGV driver can see directly through the cab’s windows plays a role in collisions with vulnerable road users? Respondents were asked whether they agreed that the amount a HGVdriver can see through the cab windows plays a role in collisions with vulnerable road users. Table/figure 1 shows that 91% agreed or strongly agreed with this concept. 4% of respondents stated that they neither agree or disagree. 3 Table 1: Vision impacts on collisions with vulnerable road users Opinion Number of responses % Strongly agree 1,883 75% Agree 401 16% Neither agree or disagree 90 4% Disagree 74 3% Strongly disagree 44 2% Not answered 7 0% Total 2,498 100% Figure 1: Vision impacts on collisions with vulnerable road users To what extent do you agree or disagree that the amount a HGV driver can directly see through the cab’s windows plays a role in collisions with vulnerable road users? 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 responses 1000 of 800 600 Number 400 200 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or Disagree Strongly disagree Not Answered disagree Opinions Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the amount a HGV driver can directly see should be improved to reduce HGV road risk? Respondents were asked if they agree whether the amount a HGV driver can see directly should be improved to reduce HGV risk. Table/figure 2 shows that 92% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this this idea. 4% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed. 4 Table 2: Improve amount that can be seen by HGV driver to reduce HGV risk Opinion Number of responses % Strongly agree 1,987 80% Agree 311 12% Neither agree or disagree 96 4% Disagree 64 3% Strongly disagree 35 1% Not answered 5 0% Total 2,498 100% Figure 2: Improve amount that can be seen by HGV driver to reduce HGV risk To what extent do you agree or disagree that the amount a driver can directly see should be improved to reduce HGV road risk? 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 responses 1000 of 800 600 Number 400 200 0 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree or Disagree Strongly disagree Not Answered disagree Opinions Question 3: To what extent do
Recommended publications
  • City Villages: More Homes, Better Communities, IPPR

    City Villages: More Homes, Better Communities, IPPR

    CITY VILLAGES MORE HOMES, BETTER COMMUNITIES March 2015 © IPPR 2015 Edited by Andrew Adonis and Bill Davies Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This book was first published in March 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions expressed in this collection are those of the authors only. CITY VILLAGES More homes, better communities Edited by Andrew Adonis and Bill Davies March 2015 ABOUT THE EDITORS Andrew Adonis is chair of trustees of IPPR and a former Labour cabinet minister. Bill Davies is a research fellow at IPPR North. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors would like to thank Peabody for generously supporting the project, with particular thanks to Stephen Howlett, who is also a contributor. The editors would also like to thank the Oak Foundation for their generous and long-standing support for IPPR’s programme of housing work.
  • London Plan 2004

    London Plan 2004

    Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document or its summary, please contact us at the address below: Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall www.london.gov.uk The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require. The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London If you would like a copy of the summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the Plan The London address above. Chinese Hindi Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Greater for Spatial Development Strategy Vietnamese Bengali Greek Urdu Turkish Arabic Punjabi Gujarati February 2004 City Hall www.london.gov.uk The Queen’s Walk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 London SE1 2AA Minicom 020 7983 4458 MoL/Feb 04/CJ D&P/MT/448A The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London February 2004 copyright Greater London Authority February 2004 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 1 85261 544 3 Cover photograph Adam Hinton This document is printed on 50 per cent post consumer recycled paper, 50 per cent totally chlorine free pulp, and printed with vegetable oil based inks. Acknowlegements The Mayor would like to thank everyone who contributed to this plan including the Independent Panel, all participants at the Examination in Public and everyone else who responded to the public consultation.
  • Speakers of the House of Commons

    Speakers of the House of Commons

    Parliamentary Information List BRIEFING PAPER 04637a 21 August 2015 Speakers of the House of Commons Speaker Date Constituency Notes Peter de Montfort 1258 − William Trussell 1327 − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Styled 'Procurator' Henry Beaumont 1332 (Mar) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Sir Geoffrey Le Scrope 1332 (Sep) − Appeared as joint spokesman of Lords and Commons. Probably Chief Justice. William Trussell 1340 − William Trussell 1343 − Appeared for the Commons alone. William de Thorpe 1347-1348 − Probably Chief Justice. Baron of the Exchequer, 1352. William de Shareshull 1351-1352 − Probably Chief Justice. Sir Henry Green 1361-1363¹ − Doubtful if he acted as Speaker. All of the above were Presiding Officers rather than Speakers Sir Peter de la Mare 1376 − Sir Thomas Hungerford 1377 (Jan-Mar) Wiltshire The first to be designated Speaker. Sir Peter de la Mare 1377 (Oct-Nov) Herefordshire Sir James Pickering 1378 (Oct-Nov) Westmorland Sir John Guildesborough 1380 Essex Sir Richard Waldegrave 1381-1382 Suffolk Sir James Pickering 1383-1390 Yorkshire During these years the records are defective and this Speaker's service might not have been unbroken. Sir John Bussy 1394-1398 Lincolnshire Beheaded 1399 Sir John Cheyne 1399 (Oct) Gloucestershire Resigned after only two days in office. John Dorewood 1399 (Oct-Nov) Essex Possibly the first lawyer to become Speaker. Sir Arnold Savage 1401(Jan-Mar) Kent Sir Henry Redford 1402 (Oct-Nov) Lincolnshire Sir Arnold Savage 1404 (Jan-Apr) Kent Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct-Nov) Devonshire Or Esturmy Sir John Tiptoft 1406 Huntingdonshire Created Baron Tiptoft, 1426.
  • Recall of Mps

    Recall of Mps

    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
  • FDN-274688 Disclosure

    FDN-274688 Disclosure

    FDN-274688 Disclosure MP Total Adam Afriyie 5 Adam Holloway 4 Adrian Bailey 7 Alan Campbell 3 Alan Duncan 2 Alan Haselhurst 5 Alan Johnson 5 Alan Meale 2 Alan Whitehead 1 Alasdair McDonnell 1 Albert Owen 5 Alberto Costa 7 Alec Shelbrooke 3 Alex Chalk 6 Alex Cunningham 1 Alex Salmond 2 Alison McGovern 2 Alison Thewliss 1 Alistair Burt 6 Alistair Carmichael 1 Alok Sharma 4 Alun Cairns 3 Amanda Solloway 1 Amber Rudd 10 Andrea Jenkyns 9 Andrea Leadsom 3 Andrew Bingham 6 Andrew Bridgen 1 Andrew Griffiths 4 Andrew Gwynne 2 Andrew Jones 1 Andrew Mitchell 9 Andrew Murrison 4 Andrew Percy 4 Andrew Rosindell 4 Andrew Selous 10 Andrew Smith 5 Andrew Stephenson 4 Andrew Turner 3 Andrew Tyrie 8 Andy Burnham 1 Andy McDonald 2 Andy Slaughter 8 FDN-274688 Disclosure Angela Crawley 3 Angela Eagle 3 Angela Rayner 7 Angela Smith 3 Angela Watkinson 1 Angus MacNeil 1 Ann Clwyd 3 Ann Coffey 5 Anna Soubry 1 Anna Turley 6 Anne Main 4 Anne McLaughlin 3 Anne Milton 4 Anne-Marie Morris 1 Anne-Marie Trevelyan 3 Antoinette Sandbach 1 Barry Gardiner 9 Barry Sheerman 3 Ben Bradshaw 6 Ben Gummer 3 Ben Howlett 2 Ben Wallace 8 Bernard Jenkin 45 Bill Wiggin 4 Bob Blackman 3 Bob Stewart 4 Boris Johnson 5 Brandon Lewis 1 Brendan O'Hara 5 Bridget Phillipson 2 Byron Davies 1 Callum McCaig 6 Calum Kerr 3 Carol Monaghan 6 Caroline Ansell 4 Caroline Dinenage 4 Caroline Flint 2 Caroline Johnson 4 Caroline Lucas 7 Caroline Nokes 2 Caroline Spelman 3 Carolyn Harris 3 Cat Smith 4 Catherine McKinnell 1 FDN-274688 Disclosure Catherine West 7 Charles Walker 8 Charlie Elphicke 7 Charlotte
  • Qataris Still Denied Their Rights in Saudi

    Qataris Still Denied Their Rights in Saudi

    BUSINESS | Page 1 SPORT | Page 8 Nine-man Chelsea stunned INDEX DOW JONES QE NYMEX QATAR 2-5, 20 COMMENT 18, 19 REGION 6 BUSINESS 1–4, 14-16 by Qatari, Turkish fi rms 21,848.00 9,313.49 48.82 ARAB WORLD 6 CLASSIFIED 5-13 +12.00 -156.10 +0.23 INTERNATIONAL 7–17 SPORTS 1–8 sign 15 agreements Burnley +0.05% -1.65% +0.47% Latest Figures published in QATAR since 1978 SUNDAY Vol. XXXVIII No. 10544 August 13, 2017 Dhul-Qa’da 21, 1438 AH GULF TIMES www. gulf-times.com 2 Riyals Former foreign and justice Our Say minister: Comoros move to cut Qatar ties unjustifi able O His Highness the Father Ibrahim has earlier served as Min- ister of State for Foreign Aff airs and Emir was the first head Co-operation in charge of the Arab of any Arab state to visit World and then as Minister of Justice, Comoros in charge of Public Administration of By Faisal Abdulhameed O A lot of Comorians were Islamic Aff airs and Human Rights, a al-Mudahka position he kept from May 30 2016 to agitated by the president’s July 19, 2017. Editor-in-Chief decision to sever ties with In a recent reshuffl e of the Cabinet , Ibrahim alongside two other ministers Qatar from his Juwa Party, was dismissed for The road to the their support for the cause of Qatar and Comoros and By Ahmed al-Qudah and Ayman Adly rejecting the decision of the President Doha Azali Assoumani to cut ties with Doha.
  • 83-483-N83 Consultation Report

    83-483-N83 Consultation Report

    Consultation on proposed changes to bus route 83 and the introduction of new route 483 Consultation Report June 2016 1 Consultation on proposed changes to bus route 83 and the introduction of new route 483 Consultation Report 2 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 2 2 The consultation .......................................................................................... 2 3 Responses from members of the public ...................................................... 4 4 Responses from statutory bodies and other stakeholders ......................... 14 Appendix A – Consultation materials .............................................................. 19 Appendix B – Leaflet distribution area ............................................................. 24 Appendix C - Postcode Analysis ..................................................................... 25 Appendix D – All comments received .............................................................. 30 Appendix E – List of stakeholders consulted ................................................... 39 1 1 Introduction We recently consulted stakeholders and the public about a proposed change to bus route 83 and the introduction of a new bus route, numbered 483. The consultation took place for a period of six weeks from Monday 11 January to Monday 22 February 2016. This report explains the background to the scheme and consultation, and summarises the responses. Route 83 is a 24-hour service that runs
  • UKIP NEC Meeting Agenda

    UKIP NEC Meeting Agenda

    - UKIP, Lexdrum House, King Charles Business Park, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 6UT - UKIP NEC Meeting Agenda 01/02/20 – 13.00 Union Jack Club, Sandell St, London, SE1 8UJ 1, Attendance Ian Garbutt (IG), Paul Girvan (PG), Elizabeth Jones (EJ), Marietta King (MK), Donald Mackay (DM), Joel McGuigan (JM), Pat Mountain (PatM), Pete Muswell (PeteM), Mike Shaw (MS), Freddy Vachha (FV), Hoong Wai Cheah (HW - Minutes taker), Ben Walker (BW) Apologies Paul Williams, Lawrence Webb, Neil Hamilton New members (PG) & (IG) were welcomed to the meeting. 2, Approval of Minutes Proposed by FV, seconded by PM – 5 Votes FOR, 2 Abstentions, 0 Against 3, Matters Arising Mike Shaw addressed the NEC with some questions which were answered throughout the duration of the meeting. 4, Leaders Report (PatM) (BW) (NH) & (FV) are working hard to firefight, answer emails, etc further complicated by lack of funds. (PatM) responded to (MS) ref Mark Harland issue - UKIP went to court to get permission to pay late invoice for EU election. It is the Treasurer's job to do this. Mark did not feel competent to attending court. Adam Richardson was asked to attend instead. Mark and others took steps to get Adam debarred. Adam demanded an apology for past grievances before doing this. Pat did not ever say she would attend. Mark apologised. Adam was unhappy with the sincerity of the apology. Pat asked Neil to help. Neil tried to get Adam to go. It was Mark's responsibility as Treasurer but indicated his intention to resign on 31 Dec. Mark resigned the next day.
  • Contents Theresa May - the Prime Minister

    Contents Theresa May - the Prime Minister

    Contents Theresa May - The Prime Minister .......................................................................................................... 5 Nancy Astor - The first female Member of Parliament to take her seat ................................................ 6 Anne Jenkin - Co-founder Women 2 Win ............................................................................................... 7 Margaret Thatcher – Britain’s first woman Prime Minister .................................................................... 8 Penny Mordaunt – First woman Minister of State for the Armed Forces at the Ministry of Defence ... 9 Lucy Baldwin - Midwifery and safer birth campaigner ......................................................................... 10 Hazel Byford – Conservative Women’s Organisation Chairman 1990 - 1993....................................... 11 Emmeline Pankhurst – Leader of the British Suffragette Movement .................................................. 12 Andrea Leadsom – Leader of House of Commons ................................................................................ 13 Florence Horsbrugh - First woman to move the Address in reply to the King's Speech ...................... 14 Helen Whately – Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party ............................................................. 15 Gillian Shephard – Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers ............................................... 16 Dorothy Brant – Suffragette who brought women into Conservative Associations ...........................
  • Planning Inspectorate by Email 14 December 2020 Dear Rynd Smith, I Write Following the Verbal Submissions Made on My Behalf by P

    Planning Inspectorate by Email 14 December 2020 Dear Rynd Smith, I Write Following the Verbal Submissions Made on My Behalf by P

    Planning Inspectorate By Email 14 December 2020 Dear Rynd Smith, I write following the verbal submissions made on my behalf by Phil North during the Issue Specific Hearings on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd December 2020. During the discussion on ‘developments in energy policy’, Phil North referenced the adjournment debate which took place in Parliament on the 5th November 2020, where the Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng said that “the argument for some form of offshore network review had been won.” The Minister was, of course, referring to a system of integrated and coordinated connections as set out in the National Grid Offshore Network Review that he initiated. As I have already pointed out in previous submissions, the review states that “the majority of the technology required for integrated design is available now” and that ‘”some changes to achieve an integrated network can take place within the current regime.” Indeed, as Phil North also referenced, SPR think the technology is already available too, hence their commitment to undersea cabling as part of the Scotland to England ‘super-highway’, bringing energy onshore in an integrated way. If they are committing to that elsewhere then I would suggest they could provide undersea cabling to onshore the energy connection for EA1 & EA2 at a more appropriate site, closer to a centre of population. In the past I’ve referenced the brownfield site at Bradwell. As the adjournment debate was referenced in the issue specific hearings, you requested that I send the Hansard link and copy of the debate as evidence for you and your team to consider.
  • Research Excellence Recognised N Monday 5Th December, Bangor University Held a New Awards Night Focusing on Re- Searcho Excellence Within the Univer- Sity

    Research Excellence Recognised N Monday 5Th December, Bangor University Held a New Awards Night Focusing on Re- Searcho Excellence Within the Univer- Sity

    Bangor University Students’ Union December Issue 2016 English Language Issue No. 259 Newspaper FREE @SerenBangor seren.bangor.ac.uk CHAPECOENSE TRAGEDY MERRY CHRISTMAS! A YEAR IN MUSIC Research excellence recognised n Monday 5th December, Bangor University held a new awards night focusing on re- searchO excellence within the Univer- sity. e night was held at Pontio and shone a light on outstanding research done by teams and individuals. e Awards were devised to cel- ebrate the individual achievements of academic sta at di erent career points, including rising stars, a Doc- toral student and a Lifetime Achieve- ment Award. Awards celebrating an outstanding project or programmes within the Sciences and the Arts & Humanities and Social Sciences and for an International project were also presented. Professor John G Hughes, Vice- Chancellor of Bangor University said: “Research is an integral part of our teaching and a passion of our sta . Our research is having a major im- pact on people’s lives, both locally and globally. ese Awards are a fantastic opportunity for us to recognise and highlight the world-leading research that we have here.” Professor John Simpson of the School of Ocean Sciences won the Universi- ties rst Lifetime Achievement Award for his career that has spanned over Receiving the Lifetime Achievement Award Professor John Simpson (middle) with Professor John G Hughes, Vice-Chancellor (left) half a century with the University. His and Professor Jo Rycroft-Malone, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Research & Impact (right) work has consistently in uenced the eld of physical oceanography and has cussed on bar-headed geese, whose pean Travellers to Wales 1750-2010, colleagues and collaborators, for mak- award and very privileged to have had helped establish Bangor University as migration pattern takes them across e International Research Excellence ing Bangor University such a support- the opportunity to take on this project, a global leader in marine turbulence.
  • Agenda Item 5

    Agenda Item 5

    Written Answers to Questions Not Answered at Mayor's Question Time on 12 October 2017 The cost of Brexit Question No: 2017/4095 Fiona Twycross How much has the cost of living in London increased since the Brexit referendum? Oral response Refusing to Re-License Uber Question No: 2017/3896 Andrew Boff How much influence did you have on the decision not to re-license Uber? Oral response New housing policies Question No: 2017/3938 Sian Berry How will the new measures announced in your draft Housing Strategy preserve and increase genuinely affordable homes in London? Oral response London's Population Growth Question No: 2017/4102 David Kurten Does the Mayor consider that a projected increase in London's population to 12 million by 2050 is unsustainable? Oral response Modern Day Slavery Question No: 2017/3996 Jennette Arnold What measures are the Metropolitan Police taking towards ending Modern Day Slavery in London and how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Met and CPS? Oral response Page 1 Borough mergers and response times Question No: 2017/3917 Steve O'Connell How will you ensure that response times in the new merged borough commands remain at satisfactory levels? Oral response London Sustainability and Transformation Plans Question No: 2017/4065 Joanne McCartney The King's Fund and Nuffield Trust's recent independent report found that London's Sustainability and Transformation Plans to reduce hospital use and cut the number of beds on the scale proposed were "not credible". Do you share this assessment? What more needs to be done to ensure our NHS can continue to deliver high quality health services? Oral response Disproportionality in BAME individuals in the CJS Question No: 2017/3995 Jennette Arnold In David Lammy's recent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for BAME individuals in the Criminal Justice System, he made a recommendation for you to review the Trident Matrix to examine the way information is gathered, verified, stored and shared with specific reference to BAME disproportionality.