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	pref label
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	pref label
tabling member	label

Search

36160

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	03/02/2014
	date	30/01/2014
	date tabled	30/01/2014
	ddp created	30/01/2014 21:00:56
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:36:36
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	186075
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	01/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect of the Integrated Offender Management model piloted in the London Borough of Islington on reoffending rates in that area.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Rotherham
	tabling member printed	Sarah Champion
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 186075
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	186075
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Office. Integrated Offender Management is an important approach to cutting crime and reoffending in local areas. One of the key strengths of the approach is that the local model should be responsive to local needs and priorities as identified by the agencies and the partners in the area. For this reason, we have not imposed any particular model of Integrated Offender Management on areas, nor do we performance manage from Whitehall the crime and reoffending outcomes that local partners in areas such as the London Borough of Islington may be achieving through their local approach.</p> question first answered 01/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	4267 label Biography information for Sarah Champion
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4267 label Biography information for Sarah Champion

35175

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	30/01/2014
	date	27/01/2014
	date tabled	27/01/2014
	ddp created	27/01/2014 23:10:27
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:27:26
	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	185294
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	12/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received on the decision to withdraw the local welfare provision grant in 2015-16; and what consultation he undertook prior to making that decision.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Barrow and Furness
	tabling member printed	John Woodcock
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185294
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185294
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Thursday 30 January 2014]</em></p><p>DCLG Ministers and officials talk regularly to elected members and officers of local authorities about a range of issues.</p><p>The nationally run Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans were poorly targeted and failed to help those most in need. So, in 2012 as part of wider welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions abolished these national discretionary schemes and transferred responsibility to local authorities so they could deliver and tailor new local support as part of their existing services to their communities.</p><p>Councils can continue to provide support to those in their community who face financial difficulties or who find themselves in unavoidable circumstances, but there is no requirement to replicate the previous approach adopted by central government.</p><p>In contrast to a centralised grant system that was poorly targeted, under the Department for Work and Pensions' reforms, councils can now choose how best to support local welfare needs within their areas – what is right for, say, Barrow and Furness may not be for other authorities. Some councils have already chosen to wind down their dedicated schemes following underspends.</p><p>In the next Spending Round period, from April 2015, central government continues to provide support to local authorities through general funds as part of the Coalition Government's commitment to reducing ring-fencing and ending top-down Whitehall control.</p><p>The Department for Work and Pensions provided a separate fund for 2013-2015 and are carrying out a review of the provision to date.</p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 12/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	3917 label Biography information for Lord Walney
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	3917 label Biography information for Lord Walney

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 pref label House of Lords
	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 pref label House of Lords
	tabling member	260 label Biography information for Lord Wills

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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4079 label Biography information for Julian Sturdy

36153

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	04/02/2014
	date	30/01/2014
	date tabled	30/01/2014
	ddp created	30/01/2014 21:00:55
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:36:31
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	186102
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	02/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the total value was of fines remaining uncollected on 31 December (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 186102
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	186102
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The value of fines imposed, collected, cancelled and outstanding for the periods from April 2011 onwards are set out below.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Period</p></td><td><p>Value of fines imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fine collected in the same period they were imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fines cancelled in the same period they were imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fines imposed outstanding at the end of the period</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2011 to December 2011</p></td><td><p>£170,962,169</p></td><td><p>£54,843,753</p></td><td><p>£12,470,347</p></td><td><p>£103,648,069</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2012 to December 2012</p></td><td><p>£273,944,704</p></td><td><p>£70,032,092</p></td><td><p>£17,470,412</p></td><td><p>£186,442,200</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2013 to September 2013 (latest published period)</p></td><td><p>£210,561,372</p></td><td><p>£44,541,677</p></td><td><p>£11,548,807</p></td><td><p>£154,470,888</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The values above only refer to fines and not any other elements of financial impositions such as prosecutor costs, compensation and victim surcharge. Where financial impositions are paid by instalments the fine element is the last part to be paid off after compensation, victim surcharge and prosecutor costs. The values cancelled can relate to legal or administrative cancellations. The value outstanding will include amounts remaining on accounts that are being paid by instalments or were not due for payment by the end of the period specified.</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to provide data in this format for any period prior to April 2011 as new performance management information was introduced at that time. It is not possible to identify how much of the amounts imposed in 2011 or 2012 remained outstanding by the end of September 2013 (latest published data period) as data is only available for 18 months after the date imposed – after that it is not possible to extract the amount outstanding for a specific period from the total balance outstanding.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) takes the issue of financial penalty enforcement very seriously and is working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. HMCTS actively pursues all outstanding impositions until certain they cannot be collected. Collection reached an all time high at the end of 2012/13 and collection has continued to rise in this financial year. At the end of September 2013 total collection (all imposition types excluding confiscation orders) was higher than the same point in the previous year and the outstanding balance had reduced since the start of the financial year. On average over the last 12 month 69% of accounts have been either closed or are compliant with payment terms by 12 months after imposition.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS are actively seeking an external provider for the future delivery of compliance and enforcement services. This will bring the necessary investment and innovation to significantly improve the collection of criminal financial penalties and reduce the cost of the service to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

36157

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	04/02/2014
	date	30/01/2014
	date tabled	30/01/2014
	ddp created	30/01/2014 21:00:56
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:36:34
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	185878
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	02/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many fines have been (a) issued by courts and (b) collected in 2013-14 to date.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185878
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185878
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>For the financial year to date, 1st April 2013 to 30th September 2013 (latest published data) 614,693 financial imposition accounts were opened. Of those accounts opened in that period, 182,183 accounts were closed. A further 199,623 accounts were compliant with their payment terms.</p><p> </p><p>Financial impositions include fines imposed in the Magistrates and Crown courts, costs orders, compensation orders, victim surcharge orders and unpaid fixed penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder which are registered as fines for enforcement. The numbers of accounts closed is the position as at the end of September 2013 and those accounts outstanding could now have been closed or collected.. Accounts that are closed are accounts with a zero balance which could have been by payment or administrative or legal cancellation.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) takes the issue of financial penalty enforcement very seriously and is working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. HMCTS actively pursues all outstanding impositions until certain they cannot be collected. Collection reached an all time high at the end of 2012/13 and collection has continued to rise in this financial year. At the end of September 2013 total collection (all imposition types excluding confiscation orders) was higher than the same point in the previous year and the outstanding balance had reduced since the start of the financial year. On average over the last 12 month 69% of accounts have been either closed or are compliant with payment terms by 12 months after imposition.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS are actively seeking an external provider for the future delivery of compliance and enforcement services. This will bring the necessary investment and innovation to significantly improve the collection of criminal financial penalties and reduce the cost of the service to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	473 label Biography information for Sir Mark Hendrick

35852

	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 01:33:44
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	185721
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	02/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many outstanding confiscation orders were written off in each year since 2010.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185721
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185721
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The volume of confiscation orders reduced or written off from 2010 to 2013 is recorded in Table A below, while the value of amounts reduced or written off is recorded in Table B.</p><p><strong>Table A</strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p>Volume of Confiscation Orders Written Off</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Category</p></td><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>Total</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DTOA Default Served</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>4</p></td><td><p>2</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Inadequacy</p></td><td><p>202</p></td><td><p>202</p></td><td><p>163</p></td><td><p>185</p></td><td><p>752</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>POCA s24 Discharge</p></td><td><p>43</p></td><td><p>61</p></td><td><p>42</p></td><td><p>29</p></td><td><p>175</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>POCA s25 Discharge</p></td><td><p>124</p></td><td><p>72</p></td><td><p>37</p></td><td><p>42</p></td><td><p>275</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Reconsideration of Available Assets</p></td><td><p>401</p></td><td><p>474</p></td><td><p>567</p></td><td><p>521</p></td><td><p>1,963</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grand Total</p></td><td><p>774</p></td><td><p>811</p></td><td><p>813</p></td><td><p>779</p></td><td><p>3,177</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>Table B</strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6"><p>Value of Confiscation Orders Written Off</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Category</p></td><td><p>2010</p></td><td><p>2011</p></td><td><p>2012</p></td><td><p>2013</p></td><td><p>Total</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>DTOA Default Served</p></td><td><p>£47,101</p></td><td><p>£882,064</p></td><td><p>£1,162,397</p></td><td><p>£22,082</p></td><td><p>£2,113,644</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Inadequacy</p></td><td><p>£5,707,742</p></td><td><p>£8,924,637</p></td><td><p>£3,673,845</p></td><td><p>£11,815,275</p></td><td><p>£30,121,499</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>POCA s24 Discharge</p></td><td><p>£70,030</p></td><td><p>£780,328</p></td><td><p>£335,969</p></td><td><p>£483,443</p></td><td><p>£1,669,770</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>POCA s25 Discharge</p></td><td><p>£1,479</p></td><td><p>£980</p></td><td><p>£797</p></td><td><p>£1,179</p></td><td><p>£4,435</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Reconsideration of Available Assets</p></td><td><p>£8,019,707</p></td><td><p>£21,235,494</p></td><td><p>£16,739,659</p></td><td><p>£20,158,107</p></td><td><p>£66,152,967</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Grand Total</p></td><td><p>£13,846,059</p></td><td><p>£31,823,503</p></td><td><p>£21,912,667</p></td><td><p>£32,480,086</p></td><td><p>£100,062,315</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>Below are explanations of the limited ways an outstanding confiscation order can be reduced or written off.</p><p><strong>Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (DTOA) Default Served</strong> – Serving the default sentence of up to 10 years for non payment of a confiscation order under this pre-Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) legislation cancels the amount outstanding in full</p><p><strong>Inadequacy </strong>– Under pre-POCA legislation the defendant can make an application to the High Court, for a fee of £350, to apply for a Certificate of Inadequacy (COI) to reduce the order amount where assets have not achieved the value assessed at the confiscation hearing.</p><p><strong>POCA s24 Discharge – </strong>The Enforcement Authority can apply to the Crown Court to reduce amounts up to £1,000 where they are satisfied the value of the asset has not met the value assessed at the confiscation hearing. The most likely cause for this is fluctuations in foreign currency.</p><p><strong>POCA s25 Discharge – </strong>The Enforcement Authority can apply to the Crown Court to discharge amounts up to £50, where there is little prospect of recovering the small amount outstanding or it is no longer cost effective to do so.</p><p><strong>Reconsideration of Available Assets</strong> - Under POCA legislation the defendant can make an application to the Crown Court, to apply for a Variation Order to reduce the order amount where assets have not achieved the value assessed at the confiscation hearing. Unlike a pre-POCA COI application, no fee is payable.</p><p> </p><p>Confiscation orders are one of the key mechanisms available to the Government to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. The value of the order imposed, which is often very high, is based on the criminal benefit attributed to the crime and may, therefore, exceed the value of realisable assets that are known to the Court at the time of imposition. Crucially, an outstanding order stops the criminal benefitting from the proceeds of crime and ensures that, if the assets are discovered in the future, they can be seized.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and other enforcement agencies take the issue of recovering criminal assets very seriously and are working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide.</p><p> </p><p>Although, as the Enforcement Authority, HMCTS owns the debt, it is not always the lead enforcement agency. HMCTS tends to lead on the high volume, low value orders. Prosecution agencies, including the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office, lead on enforcement where they have put Restraint Orders on the defendant's property to protect the asset, or where the professional expertise of an Enforcement Receiver will be required to enforce the confiscation order.</p><p> </p><p>All outstanding amounts are actively pursued using a range of enforcement tools open to us. A confiscation order is a life time order and only amounts up to £50 can be written off. Default sentences of up to 10 years in prison are activated for non payment. Serving the default sentence does not cancel the debt and we will continue to pursue the amount owed. Interest is added to the order balance outstanding at the rate of 8% per annum. The fact that interest accrues at such a high rate and amounts over £50 cannot be written off, contribute to the increasing level of debt. At the end of December 2013, the total amount outstanding was £1.47 billion, of which £372 million was interest alone. At the end of December 2013, including interest £24 million is owed by defendants who are deceased and a further £86 million is owed by defendants who have been deported. Even for those that are deported we still try to actively pursue the defendants assets held abroad, but we rely on the cooperation of overseas enforcement agencies, which is often not forthcoming. The Agencies responsible for enforcement are building better relationships with overseas authorities and engage specialist forensic teams to track down hidden assets.</p><p> </p><p>The amount defendants repaid from their criminal activity across all agencies reached an all time high during 2012/13, with a total of £133.1 million recovered. That represented a 7% increase on the £124.1 million recovered during 2011/12. The total amount recovered has increased for the last four consecutive years and once again we are on course to have another record breaking year this financial year. For the 2013/14 financial year, at the end of December 2013, £102.8 million had been recovered, which is an increase of 2% on the £100.5 million that was collected up to December 2012. Since 2008/09, when £98.8 Million was recovered, the amount collected from criminals has increased by 35%.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS is seeking a commercial partner to help increase collections, reduce enforcement costs and importantly, ensure more criminals pay. A new national system has been implemented to manage the collection of fixed penalty notices, with all of the Police Forces having transferred to the new platform by June 2013.The continuing improvement the Agencies are making combined with our future plans will ensure that more criminals pay and that taxpayers get better value for money.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	394 label Biography information for Mr Clive Betts

35511

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	03/02/2014
	date	28/01/2014
	date tabled	28/01/2014
	ddp created	28/01/2014 22:00:57
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:30:46
	answering body	Ministry of Justice
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	54
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	185484
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	02/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the total amount is of fines (a) issued by the courts and (b) uncollected was in (i) 2010, (ii) 2011, (iii) 2012 and (iv) 2013.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Tooting
	tabling member printed	Sadiq Khan
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 185484
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	185484
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p> </p><p>The value of fines imposed, collected, cancelled and outstanding for the periods from April 2011 onwards are set out below.</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Period</p></td><td><p>Value of fines imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fine collected in the same period they were imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fines cancelled in the same period they were imposed</p></td><td><p>Value of fines imposed outstanding at the end of the period</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>April 2011 to December 2011</p></td><td><p>£170,962,169</p></td><td><p>£54,843,753</p></td><td><p>£12,470,347</p></td><td><p>£103,648,069</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2012 to December 2012</p></td><td><p>£273,944,704</p></td><td><p>£70,032,092</p></td><td><p>£17,470,412</p></td><td><p>£186,442,200</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>January 2013 to September 2013 (latest published period)</p></td><td><p>£210,561,372</p></td><td><p>£44,541,677</p></td><td><p>£11,548,807</p></td><td><p>£154,470,888</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p>The values above only refer to fines and not any other elements of financial impositions such as prosecutor costs, compensation and victim surcharge. Where financial impositions are paid by instalments the fine element is the last part to be paid off after compensation, victim surcharge and prosecutor costs. The values cancelled can relate to legal or administrative cancellations. The value outstanding will include amounts remaining on accounts that are being paid by instalments or were not due for payment by the end of the period specified.</p><p> </p><p>It is not possible to provide data in this format for any period prior to April 2011 as new performance management information was introduced at that time. It is not possible to identify how much of the amounts imposed in 2011 or 2012 remained outstanding by the end of September 2013 (latest published data period) as data is only available for 18 months after the date imposed – after that it is not possible to extract the amount outstanding for a specific period from the total balance outstanding.</p><p> </p><p>HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) takes the issue of financial penalty enforcement very seriously and is working to ensure that clamping down on defaulters is a continued priority nationwide. HMCTS actively pursues all outstanding impositions until certain they cannot be collected. Collection reached an all time high at the end of 2012/13 and collection has continued to rise in this financial year. At the end of September 2013 total collection (all imposition types excluding confiscation orders) was higher than the same point in the previous year and the outstanding balance had reduced since the start of the financial year. On average over the last 12 month 69% of accounts have been either closed or are compliant with payment terms by 12 months after imposition.</p><p> </p><p>HMCTS are actively seeking an external provider for the future delivery of compliance and enforcement services. This will bring the necessary investment and innovation to significantly improve the collection of criminal financial penalties and reduce the cost of the service to the taxpayer.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 02/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan