Show Search Form

Search Results

human indexable	true false
published	true false
registered interest	true false
answer date	exactly: or between: and
date	exactly: or between: and
date tabled	exactly: or between: and
ddp created	exactly: or between: and
ddp modified	exactly: or between: and
answering body
question status
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id
identifier
legislature
parliament number
question first answered
question text
session
session number
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
title
type
uin
version
written parliamentary question type
answer	is ministerial correction true false answer text question first answered
creator	label
publisher
tabling member	label

Search

32172

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	13/01/2014
	date	09/01/2014
	date tabled	09/01/2014
	ddp created	09/01/2014 21:01:11
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:00:12
	answering body	HM Treasury
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	182696
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	07/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion and value of his Department's contracts have been let (a) under the restricted procedure, (b) by the open procedure, (c) via framework agreements and (d) via a tendering process involving the use of a pre-qualification questionnaire in each of the last three years.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Nottingham East
	tabling member printed	Chris Leslie
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 182696
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	182696
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>Since January 2011, central government departments have been required to publish on Contracts Finder information on the tenders issued and contracts they award with a value over £10,000 (excluding VAT) (www.gov.uk/contractsfinder).</p><p> </p><p>Public Procurement Regulations require that prescribed procurement procedures are used when procurements exceed the EU contract threshold values. This legal framework helps to ensure that public procurement is conducted in a fair and open manner both within the UK and across the EU.</p><p> </p><p>Less than two percent of all contracts were let under the restricted procedure in each of the last three years.</p><p> </p><p>In 2010/11 there was one contract let under the restricted procedure. This was for actuarial support to the independent commission on Equitable Life Payments that was set up by this government to recommend how best to fairly allocate funds provided for the Equitable Life Payments Scheme (ELPS) and had a contract value of £1million.</p><p> </p><p>In 2011/12 there were two contracts let under the restricted procedure. They were (i) Corporate Financial Advice framework contract (estimated contract value of £5 million over the 2 years but no guaranteed spend)and (ii) a contract for actuarial support for (ELPS) in making fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders who suffered financial losses as a result of Government maladministration which occurred in the regulation of Equitable Life. The contract value was £5.4 million.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The information requested for the proportion and value of HM Treasury contracts that have been let via framework agreements and where a tendering process involving the use of a pre-qualification questionnaire in each of the last three years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.</p><p> </p> question first answered 07/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	422 label Biography information for Mr Chris Leslie
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	422 label Biography information for Mr Chris Leslie

33137

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	17/01/2014
	date	15/01/2014
	date tabled	15/01/2014
	ddp created	15/01/2014 22:50:44
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:09:44
	answering body	HM Treasury
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	183466
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	06/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many (a) laundering plants and (b) millions of litres of fuel were seized in the UK by HM Revenue and Customs in each of the last 10 years.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	East Antrim
	tabling member printed	Sammy Wilson
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 183466
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	183466
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>Figures are only available for the years 2010-11 and onwards. The number of laundering plants and millions of litres of fuel seized in those years was as follows.</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Year</p></td><td><p>Laundering Plants</p></td><td><p>Fuel (millions litres)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>23 (20 NI 3 GB)</p></td><td><p>2.74</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>29 (NI figure only)</p></td><td><p>2.44</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13 to Dec 13</p></td><td><p>26 (22 NI 4 GB)</p></td><td><p>2.63</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>HMRC fights fraud on a wide range of fronts, from special units performing thousands of roadside checks to raiding laundering plants. HMRC has also recently concluded the evaluation of a possible new marker for rebated fuel, which will make it harder to launder marked fuel and sell it at a profit.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC uses several avenues to tackle fraud: criminal prosecution, civil action (such as seizing fuel or pumps), civil penalties and strong regulatory controls.</p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 06/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1593 label Biography information for Sammy Wilson
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	1593 label Biography information for Sammy Wilson

33825

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	22/01/2014
	date	20/01/2014
	date tabled	20/01/2014
	ddp created	21/01/2014 00:00:26
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:15:13
	answering body	HM Treasury
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184094
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	13/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many employers participated in the regional employer National Insurance contributions holiday in each region.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Cardiff South and Penarth
	tabling member printed	Stephen Doughty
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184094
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184094
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>This Government is committed to helping UK businesses grow and create jobs. The NICs holiday was a temporary, targeted scheme to help start ups take on new staff within their first year of trading. Although take up was lower than expected, the holiday benefitted over 26,000 businesses and supported over 90,000 jobs.</p><p> </p><p>Building on the lessons learnt from the holiday, we are taking action to reduce the employer NICs burden on small businesses and have created the new Employment Allowance which is simple to administer, permanent and available to all business and charities in the UK, this is reducing their employer NICs bill by up to £2,000 each year. As a result, 450,000 employers will pay no NICs at all in 2014-15.</p><p> </p><p>According to the latest available figures the break down of employers that applied for the National Insurance Holiday by region, throughout the scheme is as follows:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Region</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Northern Ireland</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1265</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Scotland</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3975</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Wales</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1695</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>East Midlands</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2645</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>North East</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>1840</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>North West</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>4840</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>South West</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3975</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>West Midlands</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3100</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Yorks</strong><strong>. And Humber</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>3265</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>26600</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The NICs Holiday attracted around 26,600 applicants over a three year period. Further statistical information on the scheme is available on a factsheet at: <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/nics-hol.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/nics-hol.htm</a>. The factsheet only covers periods from the start of the scheme to December 2012.</p><p> </p> question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	4264 label Biography information for Stephen Doughty
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4264 label Biography information for Stephen Doughty

34100

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	23/01/2014
	date	21/01/2014
	date tabled	21/01/2014
	ddp created	21/01/2014 23:20:30
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:17:55
	answering body	Ministry of Defence
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	11
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184212
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	01/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's Costing and Cost Management Strategy.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Mid Sussex
	tabling member printed	Nicholas Soames
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184212
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184212
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>Costing and Cost Management Strategy is an internal Ministry of Defence document and is not for external publication.</p> question first answered 01/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	116 label Biography information for Lord Soames of Fletching
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	116 label Biography information for Lord Soames of Fletching

34369

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	24/01/2014
	date	22/01/2014
	date tabled	22/01/2014
	ddp created	22/01/2014 23:40:40
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:20:13
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184627
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	14/05/2014 12:00:00
	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.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184627
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184627
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction 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> question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

34375

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	24/01/2014
	date	22/01/2014
	date tabled	22/01/2014
	ddp created	22/01/2014 23:40:41
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:20:18
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184631
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	09/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many families were placed in temporary accommodation in each London borough in each of the last five years.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184631
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184631
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p>I refer the rt. hon. Member to Live Table 784 available 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 numbers of households in temporary accommodation in London are still well belowthe level they were at their peak, under the previous Administration, when they hit more than 63,800. Councils have a responsibility to move homeless households into settled accommodation as quickly as possible and we made common sense changes to the law to enable them to use suitable private rented homes. Indeed, the average stay in temporary accommodation in England has been reduced from 20 months at the beginning of 2010 to 14 months now.</p><p>We have also seen a 42% reduction in the numbers of families with children in Bed and Breakfast for more than six weeks on this time last year across the country. The seven local authorities that we funded to tackle families in Bed and Breakfast have made significant progress achieving an overall reduction of 96% since the funding began.</p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 09/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

34720

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	27/01/2014
	date	23/01/2014
	date tabled	23/01/2014
	ddp created	23/01/2014 21:10:35
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:23:53
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184873
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	14/05/2014 12:00:00
	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.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Sheffield South East
	tabling member printed	Mr Clive Betts
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184873
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184873
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction 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> question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	394 label Biography information for Mr Clive Betts
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	394 label Biography information for Mr Clive Betts

35088

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	07/02/2014
	date	24/01/2014
	date tabled	24/01/2014
	ddp created	24/01/2014 20:54:36
	ddp modified	06/02/2015 17:47:50
	answering body	Cabinet Office
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	53
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	2
	identifier	HL4953
	legislature	25277
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	10/03/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, of the £108 million allocated in the 2010 Spending Review to cover the costs of introducing individual electoral registration, how much was spent in (1) 2010–11, (2) 2011–12, and (3) 2012–13; and how much is planned to be spent in (1) 2013–14, and (2) 2014–15.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member printed	Lord Wills
	title	House of Lords Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 HL4953
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	HL4953
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p>The spend to date and budgeted amounts are in the table below. The budget for the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) was set in 2010, based on robust cost projections and included optimism bias in line with best practice. Careful management of budgets, combined with an agile approach to the development of the IT supporting the move to IER has helped to ensure that, to date, the programme has come in under budget. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>The budget for IER has supported three rounds of pilots since 2011 and a complete national test of the IT that will support the automatic confirmation of at least 78% of current electors. It has enabled the allocation of resources to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and partner organisations (&pound;4.2m in the current financial year) to improve the completeness and accuracy of the Electoral Register. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>2013-14</p></td><td><p>2014-15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Actual:</p><p>&pound;2,369,719</p></td><td><p>Actual:</p><p>&pound;5,074,446</p></td><td><p>Budget:</p><p>&pound;26,148,664</p></td><td><p>Budget:</p><p>&pound;65,478,868</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>For financial year 2015/16, &pound;148 million has been set aside for the costs of Individual Electoral Registration, the General Election and the 2015/16 Boundary Commission; specific budgets for each of these areas are yet to be allocated.</p><p> </p> question first answered 10/03/2014 12:00:00
	creator	260 label Biography information for Lord Wills
	publisher	25277
	tabling member	260 label Biography information for Lord Wills

35841

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	03/02/2014
	date	29/01/2014
	date tabled	29/01/2014
	ddp created	29/01/2014 23:50:52
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:33:37
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	185824
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	02/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much HM Courts and Tribunal Service spent on interpreters in 2011, 2012 and 2013; how much was spent on interpreting each language in those years; and how much was paid by defendants towards these costs.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Preston
	tabling member printed	Mark Hendrick
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185824
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185824
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>The Department does not hold centrally all of the information that the Honourable Member has requested. Although we can not provide all the data on spend for the periods requested we can provide the annual spend for interpreters sourced through the Capita-TI Contract for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service as below:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Calendar Year</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2012</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>2013</strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£7,940,128.79</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£15,537,821.29</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Off Contract bookings made by HMCTS are outside of these spend figures. The number of bookings made off contract has substantially decreased since the start of 2012 with those bookings moving onto the Capita TI contract. This move from off contract to Capita TI is reflected in the changing year on year contract spend.</p><p> </p><p>Spend for 2012 is based on an 11 month period as the contract did not go live until 30th January 2012. Expenditure has also increased in the second year of contract due to changes made to the contract in May 2013 and an estimated 20% increase on volume. £15m was saved in year one of the contract.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>In this instance to provide the requested information on total annual spend and spend by language, would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold of £850.00 or 4 ½ working days.</p><p> </p><p>In order to provide the information we would be required toobtain a number of large reports from electronic databases. The relevant data must then be manually extracted and collated. It would also require comparison against additional financial data before analysis. We estimate that this process for the spend data would take approximately 6 working days given the volume of data involved.</p><p> </p><p>Defendants in criminal cases do not contribute towards the costs of interpreters that are provided by HMCTS. Charges for HMCTS provided interpreters in civil, family and tribunal cases are not passed directly to parties, although the costs may be recovered from court and tribunal fees in the jurisdictions where they apply.</p><p> </p> question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	473 label Biography information for Sir Mark Hendrick
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	473 label Biography information for Sir Mark Hendrick

35983

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	03/02/2014
	date	30/01/2014
	date tabled	30/01/2014
	ddp created	30/01/2014 21:00:37
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:34:52
	answering body	Department for Communities and Local Government
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	7
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	185957
	legislature	25259
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	03/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to support local planning authorities in (a) improving the viability of brownfield sites and (b) restarting stalled developments.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	York Outer
	tabling member printed	Julian Sturdy
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185957
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185957
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p><em>Kick-starting stalled developments</em></p><p>This Government has introduced a series of measures to support stalled house building. These include:</p><p>· The Get Britain Building investment fund, providing over £500 million of finance which has so far helped start 11,893 new homes on stalled sites (as of February 2014).</p><p>· The Growing Places Fund is providing £770 million to deliver the infrastructure needed to unlock stalled schemes that will promote economic growth, create jobs and build homes. The fund has been fully allocated to Local Enterprise Partnerships and the devolved administrations to fund local projects.</p><p>· 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 80,000 homes have been unlocked on fifteen different sites. A further thirteen schemes are currently being assessed for investment, which we believe have the potential to deliver nearly 40,000 homes.</p><p>· The Autumn Statement committed an additional £1 billion of Local Infrastructure Fund funding to unlock locally-led housing schemes capable of delivering up to a further 250,000 new homes, and a second round prospectus will be published in due course.</p><p>· The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 enables developers with any Section 106 agreement to apply for a review of the affordable housing component to ensure development is not being made unviable by unrealistic requirements. Such unviable Section 106 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>· As the housing market has improved, we have ended the temporary measure (introduced by the last Administration) which allowed developers to roll forward their planning permissions; this ending of the measure will increase the incentive for developers to start on site before permission expires.</p><p>· We are also seeking to tackle the inappropriate use of planning conditions and speed up the process of gaining non-planning consents.</p><p>· The Budget announced a £525 million Builders' Finance Fund to assist 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><em>Supporting development on brownfield land</em></p><p>Freeing up brownfield land for regeneration and development is a key priority for my department. Our actions include:</p><p>· We have amended planning regulations to make it easier to change the use of an existing building from commercial to residential use, retail to residential use and agricultural to residential use. Permitted development rights have been expanded, including for flats above shops and allowing for new temporary uses. The Budget announced our intention to further extend these flexibilities.</p><p>· The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning should encourage the effective use of land by re-using brownfield land provided that it is not of high environmental value, and that local councils can set locally appropriate targets for using brownfield land. We have also amended planning practice guidance to stress the importance of bringing brownfield land into use.</p><p>· We have abolished the last Government's Pathfinder programme which sought to demolish homes and instead we have focused on refurbishment and getting empty homes into use. We are investing £160 million specifically to bring empty homes back into use. The New Homes Bonus rewards long-term empty homes being brought back into use and we have given councils the flexibility to remove tax subsidies given to empty homes, and use the money to keep the overall rate of council tax down. The number of empty homes in England has fallen to its lowest rate ever according to the Empty Homes Agency.</p><p>· My Department has been supporting the Olympic legacy, driving renewal and regeneration in east London, replacing over 740 acres of polluted, low-grade industrial land and premises with new sports and community facilities, parks, homes, shops and transport infrastructure.</p><p>· We are working with the Mayor of London to unlock the construction of 11,000 new homes at Barking Riverside, and extend transport infrastructure.</p><p>· A new garden city will be delivered on brownfield land in Ebbsfleet, supported by an Urban Development Corporation and up to £200 million of public investment. The last Administration pledged in its 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan to regenerate Ebbsfleet but failed to deliver.</p><p>· The new Right to Contest builds on our existing Community Right to Reclaim Land, which lets communities ask that under-used or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use. This new Right applies to sites currently in use, but are not vital for operations. It gives businesses and members of the public an opportunity to challenge government on the best use of its estate.</p><p>· We have a comprehensive programme to sell surplus public sector land and property, freeing up taxpayers' money and providing land for new homes. As at the end of December we had released surplus government owned land with capacity for 68,000 homes to be built. We have strengthened the role of the Homes and Communities Agency through a targeted programme of transfers from other Government Departments and agencies. In addition, to ensure land is released efficiently, the Homes and Communities Agency will be Government's land disposal agency. This builds on the Homes and Communities Agency's expertise and experience of complex land remediation and disposals as well as their close relationships with local planning authorities.</p><p>· Through the Strategic Land and Property Review we have identified scope to generate £5 billion of receipts from government land and property between 2015 and 2020. This will put land and property into the hands of those who can exploit them for commercial purposes – creating opportunities for housing and economic development.</p><p>· Changes to Community Infrastructure Levy rules now provide an increased incentive for brownfield development, and extended exemptions for empty buildings being brought back into. We have recently published a consultation paper to lift Section 106 burdens on vacant buildings being returned to use.</p><p>· The Budget announced an Estate Regeneration fund which will provide £150 million to help kick start and accelerate the regeneration of housing estates.</p><p>I hope this outlines the decisive action that this Government is taking.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 03/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	4079 label Biography information for Julian Sturdy
	publisher	25259
	tabling member	4079 label Biography information for Julian Sturdy