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
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 grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label attachment file name title previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

48158

registered interest
date	10/04/2014
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
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 average number of people on a waiting list for an allotment for every 100 plots available in England.
tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
uin	196308
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>My Department does not estimate allotment waiting list times, as it is individual local authorities which have the legal responsibility for the management and provision of allotments in their area, ensuring that those who want to start an allotment can do so.</p><p>Notwithstanding, a survey of allotment waiting lists was carried out by the National Allotment Society and Transition Town West Kirby in July 2013. Whilst there is a degree of difficulty in creating precise estimates, their research indicated that there was an average of 52 people waiting for every 100 plots (as of January 2013). These waiting list figures were down on their previous surveys, which indicated an average of 57 people waiting in January 2011 and 59 people waiting in January 2010.</p><p>The 2013 survey also noted that that 65 new allotment sites had been created in the previous two years, across 51 councils, creating roughly 2,000 new allotment plots.</p><p>The Coalition Government has introduced a range of measures to help communities who want land to grow fruit and vegetables. Through new community rights, local residents have increased opportunities to protect existing allotments from development and increase provision of green spaces. For example, in Thame, in Oxfordshire, their new neighbourhood plan will create an additional hectare of allotment land. Allotments have also been listed as assets of community value.</p><p>As part of our commitment to supporting local community groups, my Department has also published a best practice guide for community groups wanting to find land to grow fruit and vegetables, as well as an additional guide on establishing community orchards and other spaces for food growing. These can be found at:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/space-for-food-growing-a-guide" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/space-for-food-growing-a-guide</a></p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-orchards-a-how-to-guide" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-orchards-a-how-to-guide</a></p><p>In January 2014, my Department published <em>Allotment Disposal Guidance: Safeguards and Alternatives </em>replacing the previous guidance from 2002. The new guidance strengthens allotment protection, as the requirement for waiting lists to be taken into account must now be rigorously applied to all that council's waiting lists, not just the waiting list for the site to be disposed of. This aims to ensure that poorly maintained sites are not used to justify disposal. Ministers will be closely monitoring to ensure that this new guidance is followed.</p><p>I also refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer today to him of questions 191956 &amp; 196310, which explains how the Secretary of State's decisions on allotments since May 2010 have resulted in an increase in usable allotment land.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Bristol West answering member printed Stephen Williams grouped question UIN 196309 196311 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1492 label Biography information for Stephen Williams
tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

46048

registered interest
date	31/03/2014
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
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 homeless households were accepted as being owed a duty of accommodation by their local authority in each year since 2010; and how many such acceptances were the result of domestic violence.
tabling member constituency	Warrington North
tabling member printed	Helen Jones
uin	194443
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Thursday 3 April 2014]</em></p><p>I refer the hon. Member to Live Table 773 available on my Department's website at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/286822/Table_773.xlsx" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/286822/Table_773.xlsx</a> for data on homelessness acceptances and households with a priority need category of domestic violence.</p><p>Data at local authority level can be found in our “Detailed local authority level homelessness figures” spreadsheets which can be found on my Department's website at: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness</a></p><p>The average numbers since 2010 are far less than under the last Administration, but there is no case for complacency or tolerance of domestic violence.The Coalition Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. This funding is used to part-fund 54 Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference coordinators and 144 Independent Domestic Violence Advisors. We have piloted and rolled out Clare's Law and Domestic Violence Protection Orders; extended the definition of domestic abuse to cover controlling behaviour and teenage relationships; run two successful campaigns to challenge perceptions of abuse; and placed Domestic Homicide Reviews on a statutory footing to make sure lessons are learned from individual tragedies.</p><p>The dynamics of domestic abuse mean that accommodation can play an important role in the resolution of interpersonal abuse and conflict. It is the foundation to ensuring that adult and child victims are afforded safety and security. This is why this Government has invested £470 million to prevent and tackle all forms of homelessness over the spending review period. The homelessness legislation in England provides one of the strongest safety nets in the world for families with children and vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own.</p><p>There is a range of support for victims of domestic abuse. Some victims will be accommodated in refuges, but Sanctuary Schemes and mainstream local authority accommodation may be an option for others, while some victims will pursue independent solutions with help and advice from support schemes as necessary.</p><p>My Department also funds UKRefugesOnline a UK wide database of domestic violence services which supports the national 24 hour free phone domestic violence helpline. It enables those working with victims of domestic violence to identify appropriate services and potential refuge vacancies around the country so that victims can get the help they need as quickly as possible.</p><p>This Government has also made common sense changes to the law to allow local authorities to end the main homelessness duty with offers of accommodation in good-quality private sector accommodation. This helps homeless households move to settled accommodation more quickly and means they spend less time in temporary accommodation. Indeed, we have reduced the average stay in temporary accommodation from 20 months at the beginning of 2010 to 14 months now.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins previous answer version 4496 answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
tabling member	432 label Biography information for Helen Jones

43015

registered interest
date	13/03/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
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 applications to dispose of statutory allotments have been (a) submitted, (b) approved and (c) rejected in each local authority area in each year since 2010.
tabling member constituency	Leeds Central
tabling member printed	Hilary Benn
uin	191956
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>Further to the Allotments Act 1925, applications for consent to dispose of allotment land are submitted to the Department by local councils (parish councils and principal authorities). The table below shows the breakdown of applications since May 2010.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td> </td><td><p><em>Granted</em></p></td><td><p><em>Withdrawn</em></p></td><td><p><em>Refused</em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>May 2010- March 2011</p></td><td><p>18</p></td><td><p>6</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>5</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2014-15 to date</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>1</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>To place this in context, the Secretary of State granted 34 allotment disposals in 2007, granted 22 in 2008 and granted 18 in 2009, whilst only 2 were declined, which is a greater rate than under this Administration.</p><p>I observe that the rt. hon. Member has been quoted in the media attacking such consents. He would have been wiser however to have undertaken a closer examination of the 68 individual consents granted to the local councils since May 2010.</p><p>The table below provides some context to help explain why there was a reasonable case by the representative local bodies for changing the statutory status of the land.</p><p>In January 2014, my Department published <em>Allotment Disposal Guidance: Safeguards and Alternatives</em> replacing the previous guidance from 2002. The new guidance strengthens allotment protection, as the requirement for waiting lists to be taken into account must now be rigorously applied to all that council's waiting lists, not just the waiting list for the site to be disposed of. This aims to ensure that poorly maintained sites are not used to justify disposal. Ministers will be closely monitoring to ensure that this new guidance is followed.</p><p>Notwithstanding, I have taken the opportunity to analyse these previous cases in the table below. The National Allotment Society was consulted in every case, and nine out of ten decisions were consistent with advice from the National Allotment Society (where advice was given); the remaining cases where the advice diverged related to land not actually in use as allotments, requiring a judgement call on whether it was realistic to bring the land back into productive use.</p><p>Having analysed these approvals, I can note that half of the land disposed was not actually in use as allotments. Moreover, in every case where existing allotment plot holders were displaced, evidence from local authorities indicates that alternative plots were made available to them.</p><p>More new plots were proposed to be created and/or vacant sites proposed to be brought back into use than the number of proposed disposals of in-use allotment plots. Consequently, the statutory disposal process overseen by the Secretary of State since May 2010 should have resulted in an <strong>increase</strong> in allotment provision not a reduction. This reflects this Government's commitment both to supporting local communities grow their own food and to protecting important community assets.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Bristol West answering member printed Stephen Williams grouped question UIN 196310 question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1492 label Biography information for Stephen Williams attachment 1 file name 2269 & 2521 Benn - Table.docx title Allotments - Disposal Consents Granted
tabling member	413 label Biography information for Hilary Benn

34720

registered interest
date	23/01/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
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 households in England received a weekly general, all-purpose, rubbish collection service in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.
tabling member constituency	Sheffield South East
tabling member printed	Mr Clive Betts
uin	184873
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p><em>Labour's legacy</em></p><p>The last Labour Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections and hitting hard-working families with new bin charges.Their ‘Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme' advocated “collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”, and sought to “nationalise this policy among local authorities”. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with the zeal of a convert.</p><p>Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules; further legislation in 2008 watered down councils' legal duties to collect rubbish. Guidance issued in 2005 advised town halls that councillors should be bullied to stop them opposing the axing of collections or proposing to restore weekly collections. It also recommended that cutting collections should be done after local elections – to avoid the nuisance of democratic opposition. The Government funded the covert imposition of “bin brother” microchips into families' bins. The 2009 Pre-Budget Report made clear that a further wave of bin cuts were being planned. In short, the “Town Hall Talibin” doubled council tax and halved bin collections.</p><p>We disagree. This Government believes that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the £122 a month in council tax that a typical household pays (Band D), especially given the typical refuse collection service only costs councils £6 to £7 per month to provide.</p><p><em>What we've done</em></p><p>We have taken a series of steps to help households:</p><p> </p><p>· Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling;</p><p> </p><p>· Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (<em>Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge</em> and <em>Waste Management Quick Guide</em>).</p><p> </p><p>· Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;</p><p> </p><p>· Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;</p><p> </p><p>· Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;</p><p> </p><p>· Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice;</p><p> </p><p>· Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement);</p><p> </p><p>· Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;</p><p> </p><p>· Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging' on households bins;</p><p> </p><p>· Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network' which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;</p><p> </p><p>· Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;</p><p> </p><p>· Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from “Binquisition” inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families' bins;</p><p> </p><p>· Changing building regulations to tackle ‘bin blight'; and</p><p> </p><p>· Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.</p><p>In short, this has been a fundamentally different approach from the Labour Government: we are working with families to help them go green, but believe in proper, regular and comprehensive collections for taxpaying households.</p><p>The configuration of services is complex. The table below, based on available estimates from WRAP, provide the most detailed information held on the breakdown of refuse and recycling collections of ‘smelly' rubbish across councils in England.</p><p><em>Weekly collections of smelly rubbish</em></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Councils</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual </em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>189</p></td><td><p>45</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>190</p></td><td><p>52</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>189</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>182</p></td><td><p>58</p></td><td><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>21</p></td><td><p>181</p></td><td><p>61</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>179</p></td><td><p>62</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em> </em></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Households</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly collection and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual </em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>1,296,296</p></td><td><p>405,719</p></td><td><p>718,292</p></td><td><p>10,480,876</p></td><td><p>1,750,654</p></td><td><p>353,001</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>1,079,984</p></td><td><p>479,151</p></td><td><p>998,017</p></td><td><p>9,694,524</p></td><td><p>2,197,166</p></td><td><p>542,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>1,141,584</p></td><td><p>441,151</p></td><td><p>998,017</p></td><td><p>9,341,759</p></td><td><p>2,426,531</p></td><td><p>602,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>1,124,040</p></td><td><p>441,151</p></td><td><p>861,447</p></td><td><p>9,064,454</p></td><td><p>2,571,575</p></td><td><p>602,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>1,378,876</p></td><td><p>440,812</p></td><td><p>851,915</p></td><td><p>8,239,673</p></td><td><p>2,896,107</p></td><td><p>747,024</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>1,386,876</p></td><td><p>440,812</p></td><td><p>747,915</p></td><td><p>7,885,321</p></td><td><p>2,981,513</p></td><td><p>747,024</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><em>Fortnightly collections</em></p><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><em>Councils</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>36</p></td><td><p>143</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>142</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>144</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>149</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>47</p></td><td><p>145</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>147</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><em>Households</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>1,668,211</p></td><td><p>5,879,808</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>1,838,632</p></td><td><p>6,014,336</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>1,860,532</p></td><td><p>6,032,245</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>2,034,102</p></td><td><p>6,145,050</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>2,170,143</p></td><td><p>6,173,402</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>2,319,143</p></td><td><p>6,389,348</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Note: Some councils may have a combination of the categories in the table below and have been counted under each one that they provide.</p><p>This shows that 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish. Had the Government not taken the actions it had, weekly collections would have disappeared in England by 2015. This simple assertion can be illustrated by the extinction of weekly collections in most of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved Administrations and policies of supporting fortnightly bin collections. Indeed, in Wales, the Labour-led Welsh Government now has a policy of supporting monthly bin collections (Welsh Government, <em>Municipal Sector Plan Part 1</em>, March 2011 and Welsh Government, <em>Cabinet decision, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, Additional Funding for Zero Waste Gurnos</em>, February 2012).</p><p>We have stopped the rot, but there is more to do to support weekly bin collections. Many town hall jobsworths, over-zealous NGOs and vested interests in the waste industry remain blindly obsessed with restricting bin collections as a perverse policy goal in itself, and this is reflected in the figures in the table above. Indeed, even Keep Britain Tidy – which one would think would want regular rubbish collections to keep the streets clean – has been taken over by a NGO (Waste Watch) which campaigns for fortnightly bin collections. Bin collections are not viewed as a public service – but as a policy tool to deliver other arbitrary policy goals.</p><p><em>More to do</em></p><p>One option which should be considered is a minimum service standard – for example, the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 already lays down minimum service requirements for recycling, and indeed, the Public Health Act 1875 introduced a duty on local authorities to collect rubbish; this duty was enhanced by the Public Health Act 1936 obliging them to collect household waste weekly which existed until 1974.</p><p>Moving forward, we are open to representations on how best to support frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service; stand up for taxpayers' interests from arbitrary state charges and taxes; and protect the local environment, public health and local amenity from the nuisance of stinking rubbish.</p><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Great Yarmouth answering member printed Brandon Lewis question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4009 label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis
tabling member	394 label Biography information for Mr Clive Betts

34369

registered interest
date	22/01/2014
answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
answering dept id	7
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
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 average proportion of market rent of all affordable housing is in each London borough.
tabling member constituency	Tooting
tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
uin	184627
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 14/05/2014 answer text <p> </p><p>I have placed in the Library of the House, a table showing affordable and social rents as a proportion of market rents, for each London borough.</p><p>The affordable rent model allows for more new affordable housing to be delivered with lower levels of taxpayer capital subsidy and by levering in more private investment. The programme is helping deliver £15 billion of private investment in new affordable housing over the current spending review, alongside £4.5 billion of public investment. Social rent and affordable rent go hand in hand; both help provide accommodation for those on low incomes.</p><p>As the National Audit Office has observed: “the Department selected the best delivery model open to it for the funds it had available” and “the Department has so far achieved its policy objective to maximise the number of homes delivered within the available grant funding” (National Audit Office, “Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme”, 4 July 2012, <em>HC465,</em> pp.6-7).</p><p>I note in his recent Fabian Society pamphlet, the rt. hon. Member has complained that affordable rent would result in rents of 80 per cent of market rents in London. Whilst it varies by borough, as the table shows, for example, affordable rent levels are 38 per cent of average local market rents in Camden, 48 per cent in Islington, 54 per cent in Southwark and 35 per cent in Westminster, reflecting local circumstances.</p><p>I also observe that the housing policy announced at the Labour Party Conference in October 2012 also endorsed the use of affordable rents to build new homes; albeit this point is frequently lost on many Labour hon. Members who proceed to attack the basic principle of affordable rent in allowing more new affordable homes to be built using taxpayer capital subsidy.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Keighley answering member printed Kris Hopkins question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043 label Biography information for Kris Hopkins
tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan