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	answer text question first answered answering member
creator	label
publisher	pref label
tabling member	label

Search

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 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 answering member 4009
	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

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 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 answering member 4043
	creator	3917 label Biography information for Lord Walney
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	3917 label Biography information for Lord Walney

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 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 answering member 3995
	creator	4079 label Biography information for Julian Sturdy
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4079 label Biography information for Julian Sturdy

37877

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	12/02/2014
	date	10/02/2014
	date tabled	10/02/2014
	ddp created	11/02/2014 00:30:54
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:50:33
	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	187486
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	29/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to promote gas safety among leaseholders in local authority-managed properties.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Huddersfield
	tabling member printed	Mr Barry Sheerman
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 187486
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	187486
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p>The Department does not provide advice on gas safety specifically for leaseholders in local authority–managed properties. However, the lease of a property will set out the responsibilities of the freeholder and the leaseholder, including responsibility for maintenance of gas appliances.</p><p>In the private rented and social rented sectors, landlords are required by law to: repair and maintain gas pipework, keep flues and appliances in safe condition; ensure an annual gas safety check on each appliance and flue; and keep a record of each safety check.</p><p>For the social housing sector, the Homes and Communities Agency ‘Home Standard' says that registered providers must “meet all applicable statutory requirements that provide for the health and safety of the occupants in their homes”. The Homes and Communities Agency has recently issued three ‘serious detriment' notices against Gallions, Your Housing Group and the Guinness Partnership for failing to maintain gas safety and they have all had their Governance ratings downgraded partly based on that.</p><p>The Home Standard is a ‘consumer' standard and therefore applies to all registered providers, including local authorities.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> question first answered 29/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043
	creator	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	411 label Biography information for Mr Barry Sheerman

37915

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	13/02/2014
	date	10/02/2014
	date tabled	10/02/2014
	ddp created	11/02/2014 00:30:58
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 01:51:00
	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	187458
	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, what estimate he has made of how many small businesses in Chelmsford constituency will benefit from the extension of the small business rate relief scheme.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Chelmsford
	tabling member printed	Mr Simon Burns
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 187458
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	187458
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Thursday 13 February 2014]</em></p><p>No estimate has been made of the number of small businesses in Chelmsford constituency that will benefit from the extension of the doubling of small business rate relief.</p><p>The Government estimates around 540,000 businesses in England will benefit from the extension of the doubling of small business rate relief announced at Autumn Statement 2013.</p><p>It is planned that next month some new local figures for small business rate relief by billing authority will be published.</p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 09/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4009
	creator	46 label Biography information for Sir Simon Burns
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	46 label Biography information for Sir Simon Burns

39114

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	25/02/2014
	date	21/02/2014
	date tabled	21/02/2014
	ddp created	21/02/2014 18:51:49
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 02:01:55
	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	188738
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	08/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to protect library services.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	South Staffordshire
	tabling member printed	Gavin Williamson
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 188738
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	188738
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p>I have been asked to reply.</p><p>Together with other public services, local authorities are rising to the challenge of delivering and developing the library service, with many reviewing and re-shaping their library offer. Some changes have been made in response to the on-going funding environment to which all public services are making their contribution to savings. But many changes have also been made because individual authorities are looking at better ways of delivering a range of services so that they are fit for the present and the future. Details of the various developments in library services in England, including a range of innovative approaches to the task of delivering a comprehensive and efficient service are set out in the annual report to Parliament during 2012/13 and can be accessed at:</p><p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-under-the-public-libraries-and-museums-act-1964-for-201213" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-under-the-public-libraries-and-museums-act-1964-for-201213</a></p><p> </p> question first answered 08/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 1580
	creator	4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	4108 label Biography information for Sir Gavin Williamson

41162

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	06/03/2014
	date	04/03/2014
	date tabled	04/03/2014
	ddp created	04/03/2014 22:20:34
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 02:20:55
	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	190554
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	28/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 3 March 2014, Official Report, column 694W, on polling stations, what assessment he has made of the effect of foreign language translation by local authorities on integration of non-English speakers into their communities.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Bromley and Chislehurst
	tabling member printed	Robert Neill
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 190554
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	190554
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p>In March 2013, my Department published new guidance for local authorities outlining how councils should stop translating into foreign languages. As outlined in the Written Ministerial Statement of 12 March 2013, <em>Official Report</em>, Column 5WS, such translation weakens integration; discourages communities from learning English; undermines rather than strengthens equality goals; harms community relations; and is an expensive waste of taxpayers' money at a time when councils need to be making sensible savings. It is disappointing that councils like Tower Hamlets have disregarded that guidance, and reflects broader issues with the dysfunctional governance and divisive practices of the council.</p><p>I would add that in light of previous instances of electoral fraud, including impersonation in polling stations, postal voting irregularities and allegations of improper influence, Ministers in this Department have concerns about the practice of allowing foreign language translators/interpreters inside polling stations. The privacy of the ballot must be protected and voters inside a polling station should not be subject to any pressure or influence to vote in a particular way. In that context, the integrity of the ballot box and of the local democratic process requires independent and transparent scrutiny in polling stations by polling agents, council staff, the police and, indeed, passing members of the public who are also voting. This is undermined by polling room administration being conducted in foreign languages.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong> </strong></p><p> </p> question first answered 28/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4009
	creator	1601 label Biography information for Sir Robert Neill
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	1601 label Biography information for Sir Robert Neill

41445

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	10/03/2014
	date	05/03/2014
	date tabled	05/03/2014
	ddp created	05/03/2014 22:41:25
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 02:23:40
	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	190614
	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 his policy is on devolution of Homes and Communities Agency assets to (a) combined authorities and (b) local enterprise partnerships.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne East
	tabling member printed	Mr Nicholas Brown
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 190614
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	190614
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p>In disposing of its assets the Homes and Communities Agency is guided by value for money principles; disposals are expected to be at market value for land and other assets in order to protect public investment. The Homes and Communities Agency are open to considering proposals for joint working that will promote development, economic activity and growth.</p><p>These assets were bought by the national taxpayer and therefore the receipts are deployed nationally. Receipts are reinvested to help finance other Government housing and regeneration programmes, as well as fund a range of historic legal commitments and liabilities on land inherited by the Homes and Communities Agency from other bodies (including the liabilities left by the former Regional Development Agencies).</p><p>I would add that neither combined authorities or Local Enterprise Partnerships have responsibility for housing; we should avoid ‘function creep' which would dilute their focus and/or centralise and take power away from local councils (both as local housing authorities and as local planning authorities).</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> question first answered 03/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043
	creator	523 label Biography information for Mr Nicholas Brown
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	523 label Biography information for Mr Nicholas Brown

42124

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	12/03/2014
	date	10/03/2014
	date tabled	10/03/2014
	ddp created	10/03/2014 23:31:05
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 02:29:37
	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	191376
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	06/05/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what his policy is on devolution of the Affordable Homes programme to (a) combined authorities and (b) local enterprise partnerships.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Newcastle upon Tyne East
	tabling member printed	Mr Nicholas Brown
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 191376
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	191376
	version	1
	written parliamentary question type	Ordinary
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p>Housing policy and the provision of affordable housing is not a function of combined authorities or Local Enterprise Partnerships.</p><p>Elected local councils act as both the local housing authorities and local planning authorities, and we should be cautious about any intervention which effectively transferred power upwards.</p><p>Notwithstanding, in the recent Affordable Homes Programme prospectus, we have stated that local authorities will want to engage in strategic dialogue with their Local Enterprise Partnerships when identifying key areas for economic growth.</p><p> </p> question first answered 06/05/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043
	creator	523 label Biography information for Mr Nicholas Brown
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	523 label Biography information for Mr Nicholas Brown

42384

	human indexable
	published
	registered interest
	answer date	17/03/2014
	date	11/03/2014
	date tabled	11/03/2014
	ddp created	11/03/2014 21:30:46
	ddp modified	07/02/2015 02:33:11
	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	191531
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	parliament number	55
	question first answered	10/04/2014 12:00:00
	question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many and what proportion of London households in temporary accommodation were in (a) private sector leased properties, (b) hotels, (c) bed and breakfast, (d) local authority registered social landlord property and (e) other accommodation (i) at the most recent date for which figures are available and (ii) at 31 March 2010.
	session	2013/14
	session number	3
	tabling member constituency	Westminster North
	tabling member printed	Ms Karen Buck
	title	House of Commons Tabled Parliamentary Question 2013/14 191531
	type	WrittenParliamentaryQuestion
	uin	191531
	version	2
	written parliamentary question type	NamedDay
	answer	answer answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Monday 17 March 2014]</em></p><p>To assist public scrutiny, I have placed in the Library of the House, a table which provides quarterly figures for the last ten years.</p><p>Over that period, the numbers of households in temporary accommodation in London in this Government is far lower than averaged under the last Administration. The peak of 63,800 households in December 2005 compares to 42,430 in December 2013.</p><p>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. The average stay in temporary accommodation in England has been reduced from 20 months at the beginning of 2010 to 14 months now, which means that people on average are spending far less time in such temporary accommodation.</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 my Department has 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> question first answered 10/04/2014 12:00:00 answering member 4043
	creator	199 label Biography information for Ms Karen Buck
	publisher	25259 pref label House of Commons
	tabling member	199 label Biography information for Ms Karen Buck