Linked Data API

Show Search Form

Search Results

34369
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-22more like thismore than 2014-01-22
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Tooting more like this
tabling member printed
Sadiq Khan more like this
uin 184627 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-14more like thismore than 2014-05-14
answer text <p> </p><p>I have placed in the Library of the House, a table showing affordable and social rents as a proportion of market rents, for each London borough.</p><p>The affordable rent model allows for more new affordable housing to be delivered with lower levels of taxpayer capital subsidy and by levering in more private investment. The programme is helping deliver £15 billion of private investment in new affordable housing over the current spending review, alongside £4.5 billion of public investment. Social rent and affordable rent go hand in hand; both help provide accommodation for those on low incomes.</p><p>As the National Audit Office has observed: “the Department selected the best delivery model open to it for the funds it had available” and “the Department has so far achieved its policy objective to maximise the number of homes delivered within the available grant funding” (National Audit Office, “Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme”, 4 July 2012, <em>HC465,</em> pp.6-7).</p><p>I note in his recent Fabian Society pamphlet, the rt. hon. Member has complained that affordable rent would result in rents of 80 per cent of market rents in London. Whilst it varies by borough, as the table shows, for example, affordable rent levels are 38 per cent of average local market rents in Camden, 48 per cent in Islington, 54 per cent in Southwark and 35 per cent in Westminster, reflecting local circumstances.</p><p>I also observe that the housing policy announced at the Labour Party Conference in October 2012 also endorsed the use of affordable rents to build new homes; albeit this point is frequently lost on many Labour hon. Members who proceed to attack the basic principle of affordable rent in allowing more new affordable homes to be built using taxpayer capital subsidy.</p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Keighley more like this
answering member printed Kris Hopkins more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4043
label Biography information for Kris Hopkins more like this
tabling member
1577
label Biography information for Sadiq Khan more like this
34374
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-22more like thismore than 2014-01-22
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many families were based in temporary accommodation in (a) Chelmsford constituency and (b) Essex in each quarter of the last five years. more like this
tabling member constituency Chelmsford more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Simon Burns more like this
uin 184755 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-13more like thismore than 2014-05-13
answer text <p> </p><p><em>[Holding Reply: Monday 27 January 2014]</em></p><p>The Department does not collect constituency level data. A table has been placed in the Library of the House with data for Chelmsford City Council and Essex. To assist my rt. hon. Friend, I have provided quarterly data back for the last ten years; the table illustrates how there are fewer households in temporary accommodation than the average under the last Administration.</p><p>This Government has retained a strong homelessness safety net protected in law, supported by £470 million in the current Spending Review period to prevent and tackle homelessness, rough sleeping and repossessions. We are seeing this investment making an impact with households now spending on average 7 months less in temporary accommodation than at the start of 2010.</p><p>We have also made some changes to the rules under the Localism Act to enable local authorities to end the main homelessness duty by arranging an offer of suitable accommodation in the private rented sector. This means households are likely to spend less time in temporary accommodation waiting for social housing to become available.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Keighley more like this
answering member printed Kris Hopkins more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-13T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-13T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4043
label Biography information for Kris Hopkins more like this
tabling member
46
label Biography information for Sir Simon Burns more like this
34375
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-22more like thismore than 2014-01-22
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Tooting more like this
tabling member printed
Sadiq Khan more like this
uin 184631 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-09more like thismore than 2014-05-09
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>
answering member constituency Keighley more like this
answering member printed Kris Hopkins more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-09T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-09T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4043
label Biography information for Kris Hopkins more like this
tabling member
1577
label Biography information for Sadiq Khan more like this
34652
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-22more like thismore than 2014-01-22
answering body
HM Treasury more like this
answering dept id 14 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Romford more like this
tabling member printed
Andrew Rosindell more like this
uin 184509 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-14more like thismore than 2014-05-14
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>
answering member constituency Loughborough more like this
answering member printed Nicky Morgan more like this
grouped question UIN
181673 more like this
183448 more like this
191453 more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4027
label Biography information for Baroness Morgan of Cotes more like this
tabling member
1447
label Biography information for Andrew Rosindell more like this
34720
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-23more like thismore than 2014-01-23
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Sheffield South East more like this
tabling member printed
Mr Clive Betts more like this
uin 184873 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-14more like thismore than 2014-05-14
answer text <p> </p><p><em>Labour's legacy</em></p><p>The last Labour Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections and hitting hard-working families with new bin charges.Their ‘Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme' advocated “collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”, and sought to “nationalise this policy among local authorities”. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with the zeal of a convert.</p><p>Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules; further legislation in 2008 watered down councils' legal duties to collect rubbish. Guidance issued in 2005 advised town halls that councillors should be bullied to stop them opposing the axing of collections or proposing to restore weekly collections. It also recommended that cutting collections should be done after local elections – to avoid the nuisance of democratic opposition. The Government funded the covert imposition of “bin brother” microchips into families' bins. The 2009 Pre-Budget Report made clear that a further wave of bin cuts were being planned. In short, the “Town Hall Talibin” doubled council tax and halved bin collections.</p><p>We disagree. This Government believes that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the £122 a month in council tax that a typical household pays (Band D), especially given the typical refuse collection service only costs councils £6 to £7 per month to provide.</p><p><em>What we've done</em></p><p>We have taken a series of steps to help households:</p><p> </p><p>· Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling;</p><p> </p><p>· Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (<em>Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge</em> and <em>Waste Management Quick Guide</em>).</p><p> </p><p>· Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;</p><p> </p><p>· Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;</p><p> </p><p>· Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;</p><p> </p><p>· Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice;</p><p> </p><p>· Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement);</p><p> </p><p>· Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;</p><p> </p><p>· Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging' on households bins;</p><p> </p><p>· Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network' which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;</p><p> </p><p>· Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;</p><p> </p><p>· Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from “Binquisition” inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families' bins;</p><p> </p><p>· Changing building regulations to tackle ‘bin blight'; and</p><p> </p><p>· Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.</p><p>In short, this has been a fundamentally different approach from the Labour Government: we are working with families to help them go green, but believe in proper, regular and comprehensive collections for taxpaying households.</p><p>The configuration of services is complex. The table below, based on available estimates from WRAP, provide the most detailed information held on the breakdown of refuse and recycling collections of ‘smelly' rubbish across councils in England.</p><p><em>Weekly collections of smelly rubbish</em></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Councils</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual </em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>11</p></td><td><p>19</p></td><td><p>189</p></td><td><p>45</p></td><td><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>31</p></td><td><p>9</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>190</p></td><td><p>52</p></td><td><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>189</p></td><td><p>54</p></td><td><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>33</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>17</p></td><td><p>182</p></td><td><p>58</p></td><td><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>21</p></td><td><p>181</p></td><td><p>61</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>39</p></td><td><p>8</p></td><td><p>20</p></td><td><p>179</p></td><td><p>62</p></td><td><p>12</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><p><em> </em></p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><em>Households</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly collection and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual </em></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>1,296,296</p></td><td><p>405,719</p></td><td><p>718,292</p></td><td><p>10,480,876</p></td><td><p>1,750,654</p></td><td><p>353,001</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>1,079,984</p></td><td><p>479,151</p></td><td><p>998,017</p></td><td><p>9,694,524</p></td><td><p>2,197,166</p></td><td><p>542,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>1,141,584</p></td><td><p>441,151</p></td><td><p>998,017</p></td><td><p>9,341,759</p></td><td><p>2,426,531</p></td><td><p>602,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>1,124,040</p></td><td><p>441,151</p></td><td><p>861,447</p></td><td><p>9,064,454</p></td><td><p>2,571,575</p></td><td><p>602,695</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>1,378,876</p></td><td><p>440,812</p></td><td><p>851,915</p></td><td><p>8,239,673</p></td><td><p>2,896,107</p></td><td><p>747,024</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>1,386,876</p></td><td><p>440,812</p></td><td><p>747,915</p></td><td><p>7,885,321</p></td><td><p>2,981,513</p></td><td><p>747,024</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><em>Fortnightly collections</em></p><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><em>Councils</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>36</p></td><td><p>143</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>142</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>41</p></td><td><p>144</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>44</p></td><td><p>149</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>47</p></td><td><p>145</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>49</p></td><td><p>147</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p><table><thead><tr><td><p><em>Households</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual</em></p></td><td><p><em>Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection</em></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Jun-11</p></td><td><p>1,668,211</p></td><td><p>5,879,808</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Nov-11</p></td><td><p>1,838,632</p></td><td><p>6,014,336</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Jan-12</p></td><td><p>1,860,532</p></td><td><p>6,032,245</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Feb-12</p></td><td><p>2,034,102</p></td><td><p>6,145,050</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Aug-12</p></td><td><p>2,170,143</p></td><td><p>6,173,402</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Sep-12</p></td><td><p>2,319,143</p></td><td><p>6,389,348</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Note: Some councils may have a combination of the categories in the table below and have been counted under each one that they provide.</p><p>This shows that 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish. Had the Government not taken the actions it had, weekly collections would have disappeared in England by 2015. This simple assertion can be illustrated by the extinction of weekly collections in most of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved Administrations and policies of supporting fortnightly bin collections. Indeed, in Wales, the Labour-led Welsh Government now has a policy of supporting monthly bin collections (Welsh Government, <em>Municipal Sector Plan Part 1</em>, March 2011 and Welsh Government, <em>Cabinet decision, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, Additional Funding for Zero Waste Gurnos</em>, February 2012).</p><p>We have stopped the rot, but there is more to do to support weekly bin collections. Many town hall jobsworths, over-zealous NGOs and vested interests in the waste industry remain blindly obsessed with restricting bin collections as a perverse policy goal in itself, and this is reflected in the figures in the table above. Indeed, even Keep Britain Tidy – which one would think would want regular rubbish collections to keep the streets clean – has been taken over by a NGO (Waste Watch) which campaigns for fortnightly bin collections. Bin collections are not viewed as a public service – but as a policy tool to deliver other arbitrary policy goals.</p><p><em>More to do</em></p><p>One option which should be considered is a minimum service standard – for example, the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 already lays down minimum service requirements for recycling, and indeed, the Public Health Act 1875 introduced a duty on local authorities to collect rubbish; this duty was enhanced by the Public Health Act 1936 obliging them to collect household waste weekly which existed until 1974.</p><p>Moving forward, we are open to representations on how best to support frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service; stand up for taxpayers' interests from arbitrary state charges and taxes; and protect the local environment, public health and local amenity from the nuisance of stinking rubbish.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
answering member constituency Great Yarmouth more like this
answering member printed Brandon Lewis more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-14T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4009
label Biography information for Sir Brandon Lewis more like this
tabling member
394
label Biography information for Mr Clive Betts more like this
35088
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-24more like thismore than 2014-01-24
answering body
Cabinet Office more like this
answering dept id 53 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 2 more like this
legislature
25277
pref label House of Lords more like this
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. more like this
tabling member printed
Lord Wills more like this
uin HL4953 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-03-10more like thismore than 2014-03-10
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>
answering member printed Lord Wallace of Saltaire more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-03-10T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-03-10T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
1816
label Biography information for Lord Wallace of Saltaire more like this
tabling member
260
label Biography information for Lord Wills more like this
35175
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-27more like thismore than 2014-01-27
answering body
Department for Communities and Local Government more like this
answering dept id 7 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Barrow and Furness more like this
tabling member printed
John Woodcock more like this
uin 185294 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-05-12more like thismore than 2014-05-12
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>
answering member constituency Keighley more like this
answering member printed Kris Hopkins more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-05-12T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-05-12T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
4043
label Biography information for Kris Hopkins more like this
tabling member
3917
label Biography information for Lord Walney more like this
35511
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-28more like thismore than 2014-01-28
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Tooting more like this
tabling member printed
Sadiq Khan more like this
uin 185484 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-04-02more like thismore than 2014-04-02
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>
answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire more like this
answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara more like this
grouped question UIN 185483 more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
1496
label Biography information for Shailesh Vara more like this
tabling member
1577
label Biography information for Sadiq Khan more like this
35512
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-28more like thismore than 2014-01-28
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
question text To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the total amount is of fines issued by the courts between 2010 and 2013 which remain uncollected. more like this
tabling member constituency Tooting more like this
tabling member printed
Sadiq Khan more like this
uin 185483 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-04-02more like thismore than 2014-04-02
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>
answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire more like this
answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara more like this
grouped question UIN 185484 more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
1496
label Biography information for Shailesh Vara more like this
tabling member
1577
label Biography information for Sadiq Khan more like this
35841
registered interest false remove filter
date less than 2014-01-29more like thismore than 2014-01-29
answering body
Ministry of Justice more like this
answering dept id 54 more like this
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
house id 1 more like this
legislature
25259
pref label House of Commons more like this
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. more like this
tabling member constituency Preston more like this
tabling member printed
Mark Hendrick more like this
uin 185824 more like this
answer
answer
is ministerial correction false more like this
date of answer less than 2014-04-02more like thismore than 2014-04-02
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>
answering member constituency North West Cambridgeshire more like this
answering member printed Mr Shailesh Vara more like this
question first answered
less than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Zmore like thismore than 2014-04-02T12:00:00.00Z
answering member
1496
label Biography information for Shailesh Vara more like this
tabling member
473
label Biography information for Sir Mark Hendrick more like this