Blog

  • Bob Ainsworth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Bob Ainsworth – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bob Ainsworth on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, whether he has made an assessment of the recommendations contained in the Association of Business Recovery Professionals publication entitled Level Playing Field: SMEs, taxpayers, and the Football Creditors Rule.

    Jenny Willott

    R3 has made some interesting recommendations which the football authorities should consider carefully. The football authorities have already made some changes, notably through agreeing “financial fair play” rules, salary caps and an early warning system for tax debts, as well as to governance arrangements, to increase financial stability in the leagues and to increase transparency for creditors.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in what circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

    Mrs Helen Grant

    To answer each of these points in turn:

    a) DCMS uses Department for Transport cost of fatality estimates where relevant to policy development. For instance, this valuation technique was used recently as part of the assessment of costs associated with allowing motor sport on closed roads.

    b) DCMS follows valuation guidance set out in HM Treasury’s Green Book, including the use of willingness to pay techniques, to proportionately assess the impact of policy interventions. Willingness to pay has been used as part of the DCMS cost-benefit analysis of Digital Radio Switchover, for example. DCMS also recommends Green Book valuation techniques are used by our ALBs to inform spending decisions.

    c) DCMS uses the Quality Adjusted Life Year approach where relevant to policy development. To take an example, the Culture and Sport Evidence programme that DCMS shares with a range of ALB partners has developed a Quality Adjusted Live Year approach for physical health benefits of sport, which Sport England use to assess local impacts.

    Other techniques used to assess benefits of interventions include macro-economic modelling to assess the impacts of both the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and superfast broadband investment funded by the Department.

  • Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Stephen O’Brien – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen O’Brien on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in what circumstances he uses a calculation of the (a) value of preventing a fatality, (b) willingness to pay and (c) cost-per-quality adjusted life year approach to quantify the value of a policy intervention; what other tools he uses to quantify the benefit of a policy intervention; and if he will make a statement.

    Brandon Lewis

    The Green Book and associated supplementary guidance is publicly available on the Treasury website. It sets out a range of approaches and methods that may be appropriate in a number of different appraisal circumstances.

  • Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sir Peter Bottomley on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he expects to appoint a new chariman to the Leasehold Advisory Service.

    Kris Hopkins

    Consideration will be given to the position of Chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service later this year, when the current term of office is due to end.

    This will be carried out in line with the Code of Practice for Ministerial appointments to Public Bodies published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  • Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sir Peter Bottomley on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will direct the Leasehold Advisory Service to cease carrying advertising for or links to the services of Benjamin Mire or Trust Property Management.

    Kris Hopkins

    My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. In July 2013, Mr Benjamin Mire resigned from his (part-time) judicial post on the Southern Residential Property Tribunal following a conduct investigation by the Ministry of Justice, but prior to the conclusion of the formal disciplinary process.

    Mr Mire is Chief Executive of Trust Property Management, a firm of chartered surveyors and managing agents. The issue raised is whether this company should continue to be advertised on LEASE’s (the Leasehold Advisory Service) practitioners’ list.

    The practitioner list is not meant to be a fully comprehensive list, nor does inclusion constitute a recommendation by LEASE. Firms pay a fee to be entered on the list and sign a contract accordingly.

    In considering a recent complaint on this issue, LEASE undertook a careful review of their terms and conditions in relation to inclusion in their professional directory. This has resulted in amendments being made, and revised terms and conditions have been published on their website.

    The revised terms and conditions give LEASE the right to temporarily remove an organisation’s directory information from the directory if a complaint is received from a third party relating to the organisation or its listing. They also give LEASE the right to terminate the contract with immediate effect by giving written notice if a number of conditions are not met, these include:-

    “The inclusion of the organisation’s directory information on the directory conflicts with LEASE Conferences Ltd or the Leasehold Advisory Service’s purposes, objectives or obligations or brings LEASE into disrepute or there is a risk (in our reasonable opinion) of any such conflict or bringing into disrepute.”

    If Trust Property Management does not meet the new terms and conditions when their contract for inclusion in the directory is due for renewal in July, then they will be removed, as will any other organisation which similarly does not meet the revised terms and conditions.

    Whilst I appreciate that this may not be as quick a step as my hon. Friend would wish, moving forward, I hope these actions taken will in due course ensure the continued integrity of the practitioners’ list. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend if he wishes to discuss this further.

  • Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Sir Peter Bottomley – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sir Peter Bottomley on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will direct the Leasehold Advisory Service to co-operate with the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the Campaign Against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation on providing advice to leaseholders.

    Kris Hopkins

    My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. In July 2013, Mr Benjamin Mire resigned from his (part-time) judicial post on the Southern Residential Property Tribunal following a conduct investigation by the Ministry of Justice, but prior to the conclusion of the formal disciplinary process.

    Mr Mire is Chief Executive of Trust Property Management, a firm of chartered surveyors and managing agents. The issue raised is whether this company should continue to be advertised on LEASE’s (the Leasehold Advisory Service) practitioners’ list.

    The practitioner list is not meant to be a fully comprehensive list, nor does inclusion constitute a recommendation by LEASE. Firms pay a fee to be entered on the list and sign a contract accordingly.

    In considering a recent complaint on this issue, LEASE undertook a careful review of their terms and conditions in relation to inclusion in their professional directory. This has resulted in amendments being made, and revised terms and conditions have been published on their website.

    The revised terms and conditions give LEASE the right to temporarily remove an organisation’s directory information from the directory if a complaint is received from a third party relating to the organisation or its listing. They also give LEASE the right to terminate the contract with immediate effect by giving written notice if a number of conditions are not met, these include:-

    “The inclusion of the organisation’s directory information on the directory conflicts with LEASE Conferences Ltd or the Leasehold Advisory Service’s purposes, objectives or obligations or brings LEASE into disrepute or there is a risk (in our reasonable opinion) of any such conflict or bringing into disrepute.”

    If Trust Property Management does not meet the new terms and conditions when their contract for inclusion in the directory is due for renewal in July, then they will be removed, as will any other organisation which similarly does not meet the revised terms and conditions.

    Whilst I appreciate that this may not be as quick a step as my hon. Friend would wish, moving forward, I hope these actions taken will in due course ensure the continued integrity of the practitioners’ list. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend if he wishes to discuss this further.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what proportion of his Department’s staff excluding non-departmental public bodies were (a) women in top management posts women, (b) women, (c) black and minority ethnic and (d) disabled.

    Brandon Lewis

    The current proportion of women in DCLG top management posts is 36.8%. Whilst there is more to do to ensure the Civil Service has the very best possible mix of existing and future talent, I would observe that this is an increase from 33.0% from 2009-10, and is higher than the Civil Service workforce target of 34.0%.

    I also refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer of 17 March 2014, Official Report, Column 398-400W.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Dan Jarvis – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps he is taking to give local authorities greater powers to deal with the consumption of legal highs in a public place; and what support he is providing to councils who wish to put by-laws in place to prevent such consumption.

    Norman Baker

    As stated in my answer to the Honourable Member of 7 April 2014, Official
    Report, column 112W, on 12 December 2013 I announced a review by an expert panel to look
    at how the UK’s response to new psychoactive substances, sometimes inaccurately
    called ‘legal highs’, can be enhanced beyond the existing measures. The expert panel includes
    a senior policy adviser from the Local Government Association to inform the
    work of the panel from a local government perspective, including whether
    existing by-laws may be used to tackle this damaging trade. This work is
    ongoing, and the panel is due to report its recommendations by the end of
    spring 2014.

    To support local authorities, the Home Office published guidance in December
    2013 setting out the range of legislative tools local authorities can use to
    tackle the ‘head shops’ where these substances are often sold. This was developed in
    collaboration with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the
    Local Government Association and the Trading Standards Institute and can be
    found here:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-against-head-shops

    The guidance covers offences head shops may be committing under the Misuse of
    Drugs Act 1971, the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, and various
    consumer protection regulations.

    The Home Office has also provided targeted support to local authorities with
    testing of new psychoactive substances through the Forensic Early Warning
    System, to help them take action against the sale of these products by
    identifying the contents.

  • Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Tracey Crouch – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tracey Crouch on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps he is taking to help older people with their housing needs; and if he will make a statement.

    Kris Hopkins

    The Government is committed to increasing the supply of suitable housing for older people and also to helping people to live independently at home for longer.

    The Government is improving choice for those who wish to move by providing £315 million between 2013-14 – 2017-18 through the Care and Support Specialised Housing Fund. Phase I of the fund was announced last year and will deliver more than 3,500 affordable homes for older people and adults with disabilities or mental health needs. The successful bids for Phase II of the programme, which aims to stimulate development in the wider private market, will be announced later this year.

    The National Planning Policy Framework asks local planning authorities to assess the full housing requirements in their area and plan for a mix of housing based on demographic trends and the needs of different groups in the area, including older people. The planning guidance advisesthat local planning authorities should count housing provided for older people, including residential institutions in Use Class C2, against their housing requirement. The approach taken, which may include site allocations, should be clearly set out in the Local Plan. Copies of the Framework and the guidance have been placed in the Library of the House.

    To help extended families, the Government introduced in April a 50 per cent council tax discount on family annexes. We have also made amendments to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, exempting from the levy those wanting to extend their own homes, or install residential annexes within their own property boundary.

    The Department for Communities and Local Government is providing funding of £785 million between 2011-12 – 2014-15 for the Disabled Facilities Grant which is administered by local authorities in England and provides adaptations to the homes of disabled people to help them to live as independently as possible in their own home. A further £220 million will be made available in 2015-16.

    Since 2011-12, the Government has funded FirstStop with over £2 million to provide a national information and advice service to older people, their families and carers on housing, care and finance.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Hilary Benn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-04-10.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many applications he has (a) received and (b) approved for the disposal of allotment sites in each year since 2010 in England; and in what local authority each such site was located.

    Stephen Williams

    Further to the Allotments Act 1925, applications for consent to dispose of allotment land are submitted to the Department by local councils (parish councils and principal authorities). The table below shows the breakdown of applications since May 2010.

    Granted

    Withdrawn

    Refused

    May 2010- March 2011

    18

    6

    0

    2011-12

    17

    5

    0

    2012-13

    15

    2

    1

    2013-14

    17

    1

    4

    2014-15 to date

    1

    1

    0

    To place this in context, the Secretary of State granted 34 allotment disposals in 2007, granted 22 in 2008 and granted 18 in 2009, whilst only 2 were declined, which is a greater rate than under this Administration.

    I observe that the rt. hon. Member has been quoted in the media attacking such consents. He would have been wiser however to have undertaken a closer examination of the 68 individual consents granted to the local councils since May 2010.

    The table below provides some context to help explain why there was a reasonable case by the representative local bodies for changing the statutory status of the land.

    In January 2014, my Department published Allotment Disposal Guidance: Safeguards and Alternatives replacing the previous guidance from 2002. The new guidance strengthens allotment protection, as the requirement for waiting lists to be taken into account must now be rigorously applied to all that council’s waiting lists, not just the waiting list for the site to be disposed of. This aims to ensure that poorly maintained sites are not used to justify disposal. Ministers will be closely monitoring to ensure that this new guidance is followed.

    Notwithstanding, I have taken the opportunity to analyse these previous cases in the table below. The National Allotment Society was consulted in every case, and nine out of ten decisions were consistent with advice from the National Allotment Society (where advice was given); the remaining cases where the advice diverged related to land not actually in use as allotments, requiring a judgement call on whether it was realistic to bring the land back into productive use.

    Having analysed these approvals, I can note that half of the land disposed was not actually in use as allotments. Moreover, in every case where existing allotment plot holders were displaced, evidence from local authorities indicates that alternative plots were made available to them.

    More new plots were proposed to be created and/or vacant sites proposed to be brought back into use than the number of proposed disposals of in-use allotment plots. Consequently, the statutory disposal process overseen by the Secretary of State since May 2010 should have resulted in an increase in allotment provision not a reduction. This reflects this Government’s commitment both to supporting local communities grow their own food and to protecting important community assets.