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

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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1593 label Biography information for Sammy Wilson

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 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, 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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1577 label Biography information for Sadiq Khan

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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	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 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	116 label Biography information for Lord Soames of Fletching

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

25299

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	21/11/2013
	date	19/11/2013
	date tabled	19/11/2013
	ddp created	19/11/2013 23:30:50
	ddp modified	06/02/2015 23:55:12
	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	176826
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	07/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the cost of travel within the UK was for his Department in each year since 2010; and how much of this was spent on (a) hire cars, (b) helicopter hire, (c) hotel accommodation and (d) subsistence.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Islwyn
	tabling member printed	Chris Evans
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 176826
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	176826
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p> </p><p><em>Role of the Department</em></p><p>Reflecting our responsibilities for local government, housing, planning and communities across England, the work of the Department involves staff travelling to different parts of the country.</p><p>Improved procurement has reduced our average domestic hotel rate in the UK by 8% between 2009-10 and 2012-13. Moreover, domestic flights for longer journeys can avoid the need for paying for staff to stay in a hotel overnight.</p><p>Since 2011-12, the Department accepted responsibility for some new functions outside of London, including residual functions following the closure of the Government Offices for the Regions and then oversight of the European Regional Development Fund following the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. As these business functions relate to work in areas outside of London and to the European Commission, this has therefore increased our travel spend compared to the base of 2010-11. However, this is far more than offset by the very significant savings to taxpayers of the abolition of these regional bodies.</p><p>Based on current estimates (which reflect accounting consequences from machinery of government changes) the DCLG Group is reducing its annual running costs by around 40% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2014-15. This equates to net savings of at least £532 million over this spending review period and includes savings of around £420 million from the closure of the Government Offices for the Regions.</p><p>In addition to this, I note that the Regional Development Agencies were spending in the region of £246 million a year on administration (as cited in 11 March 2009, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 592W).</p><p><em>Spending data</em></p><p>The tables below list spending on travel by financial year. Figures for 2009-10 are from July 2009, as this is when the department's current approved travel agent contract commenced; those figures are therefore only for three-quarters of the financial year, and the full year is likely to be proportionately higher.</p><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td> </td><td><p><em>Overseas Travel</em></p></td><td><p><em>Overseas Accommodation</em></p></td><td><p><em>Overseas Subsistence</em></p></td><td><p><em>Total</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>July 2009 - March 10</p></td><td><p>£408,621</p></td><td><p>£19,847</p></td><td><p>£79,574</p></td><td><p>£508,042 (part-year)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>£56,304</p></td><td><p>£21,759</p></td><td><p>£27,798</p></td><td><p>£105,861</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>£69,463</p></td><td><p>£21,204</p></td><td><p>£19,946</p></td><td><p>£110,613</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>£78,474</p></td><td><p>£29,224</p></td><td><p>£21,911</p></td><td><p>£129,609</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td> </td><td><p><em>UK Travel</em></p></td><td><p><em>UK Accommodation</em></p></td><td><p><em>UK Subsistence</em></p></td><td><p><em>Total</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>July 2009 - March 10</p></td><td><p>£621,028</p></td><td><p>£309,260</p></td><td><p>£174,888</p></td><td><p>£1,105,176 (part-year)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2010-11</p></td><td><p>£434,467</p></td><td><p>£199,563</p></td><td><p>£81,315</p></td><td><p>£715,345</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2011-12</p></td><td><p>£980,307</p></td><td><p>£162,544</p></td><td><p>£71,913</p></td><td><p>£1,214,764</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>2012-13</p></td><td><p>£1,030,710</p></td><td><p>£166,149</p></td><td><p>£74,424</p></td><td><p>£1,271,283</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Explanatory notes:</p><p>- Overseas subsistence costs can include accommodation, meals and travel tickets purchased locally.</p><p>- The costs of internal travel abroad are not routinely recorded in the form requested and this information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.</p><p>- Data on cost per trip is not centrally held in the form requested.</p><p>- For car hire, the data from our finance systems do not separate out expenditure for domestic and international car hire and this could only be provided at disproportionate cost.</p><p>- For helicopter hire, our records show that the Department has incurred no expenditure on this since 2010-11.</p><p>- Figures contained in this answer may differ from previous answers to Parliamentary Questions, as the data extracts have been re-run and reflect ongoing accruals and data. Delays in billing or crediting transactions can sometimes have an effect on the spend data between the financial years.</p><p>Taken in the whole, we have reduced overall travel spending compared to the last Administration, and delivered substantive savings for taxpayers' from the abolition of regional government in England.</p><p> </p> question first answered 07/04/2014 12:00:00
	creator	4040 label Biography information for Chris Evans
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4040 label Biography information for Chris Evans

34652

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	24/01/2014
	date	22/01/2014
	date tabled	22/01/2014
	ddp created	22/01/2014 23:41:08
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:23:09
	answering body	HM Treasury
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	184509
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	14/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many citizens of other EU member states currently living in the UK receive child benefit.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Romford
	tabling member printed	Andrew Rosindell
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 184509
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	184509
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>HMRC are not able to provide the information in the manner requested. HMRC do not record the nationality of the claimant receiving Child Benefit for children living in another member state.</p><p> </p><p>Published Child Benefit statistics provide annual estimates of the number of families and children claiming. The latest available (August 2012) show that there were 7.92 million families, responsible for 13.77 million children and qualifying young people receiving Child Benefit.</p><p>The main purpose of Child Benefit is to support families in the UK. Consequently, the rules generally do not provide for them to be paid in respect of children who live abroad.</p><p> </p><p>Nevertheless, Child Benefit is a family benefit under EC Regulation 883/2004. This regulation protects the social security rights of nationals of all member states of the European economic area, including the UK, and Switzerland when they exercise their rights of free movement under EU law.</p><p> </p><p>HMRC holds information on the number of Child Benefit awards under EC Regulation 883/2004. As at 31 December 2013, there were 20,400 ongoing Child Benefit awards under the EC Regulation in respect of 34.268 children living in another member state.</p><p> </p><p>This is a fall of 3,682 (15.3%) awards in respect of 5,903 (14.7%) fewer children since 31 December 2012.</p><p> </p><p>The breakdown by member state is as follows:</p><p> </p><p>*We have withheld the number where it is fewer than 5, as there is risk that the information could be attributed to an identifiable person, which would prejudice their right to privacy and would therefore be a breach of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Child Benefit</p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Country of residence of children</p></td><td><p>Number of awards</p></td><td><p>Number of children</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>Austria</p></td><td><p>23</p></td><td><p>37</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Belgium</p></td><td><p>75</p></td><td><p>140</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Bulgaria</p></td><td><p>186</p></td><td><p>245</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Croatia</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cyprus</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Czech Republic</p></td><td><p>124</p></td><td><p>203</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Denmark</p></td><td><p>13</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Estonia</p></td><td><p>45</p></td><td><p>65</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Finland</p></td><td><p>12</p></td><td><p>23</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>France</p></td><td><p>789</p></td><td><p>1429</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Germany</p></td><td><p>283</p></td><td><p>495</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Greece</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>69</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Hungary</p></td><td><p>136</p></td><td><p>196</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Iceland</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td><td><p>*5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Italy</p></td><td><p>156</p></td><td><p>273</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Latvia</p></td><td><p>797</p></td><td><p>1091</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Liechtenstein</p></td><td><p>0</p></td><td><p>0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Lithuania</p></td><td><p>1215</p></td><td><p>1712</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Luxembourg</p></td><td><p>7</p></td><td><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Malta</p></td><td><p>15</p></td><td><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Norway</p></td><td><p>30</p></td><td><p>61</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Poland</p></td><td><p>13174</p></td><td><p>22093</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Portugal</p></td><td><p>202</p></td><td><p>309</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Republic of Ireland</p></td><td><p>1231</p></td><td><p>2505</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Romania</p></td><td><p>230</p></td><td><p>392</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Slovakia</p></td><td><p>692</p></td><td><p>1232</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Slovenia</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Spain</p></td><td><p>600</p></td><td><p>1019</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sweden</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>95</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Switzerland</p></td><td><p>77</p></td><td><p>150</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>The Netherlands</p></td><td><p>142</p></td><td><p>288</p></td></tr><tr><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr><tr><td><p>Totals</p></td><td><p>20400</p></td><td><p>34268</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>As announced in the 2014 Budget, to prevent EEA migrants claiming benefits they are not entitled to, the Government will increase compliance checks to establish whether EEA migrants meet the entitlement conditions to receive Child Benefit</p><p> </p><p>Under domestic law, in order to claim Child Benefit EEA Migrants must be present in the UK, ordinarily resident and have a right to reside in the UK and their children must live in the UK.</p><p> </p><p>The recent changes to migrants' access to benefits announced by the Government sends a strong message that the UK benefit system is not open to abuse, as well as deterring those who may seek residence in the UK primarily to claim benefits.</p><p>Strengthening compliance checks will help prevent EEA migrants from claiming, and continuing to claim, benefits they are not entitled to. Checks will be applied to both new claims and existing awards.</p><p> </p> question first answered 14/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	1447 label Biography information for Andrew Rosindell
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1447 label Biography information for Andrew Rosindell

31322

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	09/01/2014
	date	07/01/2014
	date tabled	07/01/2014
	ddp created	07/01/2014 22:00:31
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 00:53:23
	answering body	HM Treasury
	question status	Tabled
	answering dept id	14
	answering dept short name
	answering dept sort name
	house id	1
	identifier	182196
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	13/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of an interest rate rise on customers whose mortgages are held by UKAR; and what support is available to assist such customers to switch providers.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Kilmarnock and Loudoun
	tabling member printed	Cathy Jamieson
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 182196
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	182196
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer is ministerial correction answer text <p>This Government's long term economic plan has kept interest rates at record lows for hardworking people across the country.</p><p> </p><p>Many lenders impose affordability stress tests on their mortgage lending decisions to ensure that the mortgage will remain affordable should interest rates rise. The Financial Conduct Authority's Mortgage Market Review rules, which came into force in April this year will require all mortgage lenders to conduct such a stress test.</p><p> </p><p>Although UKAR does not engage in new lending, UKAR runs a range of modelling scenarios to understand the potential effects of interest rate rises on customers. This work helps UKAR to identify customers who may be susceptible to higher interest rates and to engage with such customers at an early stage.</p><p> </p><p>UKAR assists all customers who wish to switch mortgage providers.</p><p> </p><p>NRAM and Bradford and Bingley are managed by UK Asset Resolution Limited (UKAR) which was established in 2010 to manage the disposal and rundown of outstanding assets at Bradford &amp; Bingley and Northern Rock Asset Management in an integrated way, with a view to creating value for the taxpayer. UKAR is managed at arm's length from Government, on commercial principles.</p><p> </p><p>It is therefore not for the Chancellor to discuss detailed commercial matters with UKAR.</p><p> </p> question first answered 13/05/2014 12:00:00
	creator	4011 label Biography information for Cathy Jamieson
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4011 label Biography information for Cathy Jamieson