Tag: Hilary Benn

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library correspondence he has received from Essex County Council and Brentwood Council on changes to councillors’ eligibility for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Kris Hopkins

Brentwood Borough Council did not send in a response to the consultation on “Taxpayer-funded pensions for councillors and other elected local office holders”. A copy of Essex County Council’s response is attached.

This differential interest no doubt reflects the fact that Brentwood Borough Council did not have any councillors in the Local Government Pension Scheme (a consequence of the decision of my hon. Friend, the Member for Great Yarmouth, when he was leader of the Council not to join the scheme), whereas Essex did. Non-participating councils tended not to respond to the consultation.

Prior to the consultation, only 16 per cent of councillors were actually members of the scheme and only 55 councils actually responded. The majority of Councils and Councillors submitted no objection to the Government’s proposal to end Councillor’s access to the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Such taxpayer-funded local government pensions have now been abolished, subject to practical transition measures introduced as a result of the consultation. These reforms will save taxpayers’ money, strengthen the independence of councillors, and reflects that the fact that councillors are not salaried employees of the council. Nothing prevents councillors from contributing to their own private personal pension, receiving tax relief like any other member of the public.

The suggestion by some that these changes would discourage people from running for election has not been borne out. In last year’s London borough elections, all candidates nominated in the knowledge that there would be no taxpayer-funded pensions if they were elected; yet more candidates ran for election in London in 2014 than in 2010 (source: London datastore).

I suspect that the council tax-paying public would be less than impressed at the Labour Party’s calls to reintroduce such taxpayer-funded pensions.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2015-02-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he is taking to ensures that in cases where jobseeker’s allowance claimants are sanctioned, local authorities suspend housing benefit only in cases where it is appropriate to do so.

Esther McVey

I refer the Hon. member to the reply given to the Rt Hon. Member for East Ham on 5 January 2015.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library the impact assessment his Department prepared alongside its response to the consultation on local authority parking.

Brandon Lewis

The Government has recently published the response to the consultation, which outlines the broad series of policies to tackle unreasonable and unfair parking enforcement, support local shops and reverse the Labour Government’s war on the motorist.

We will assess in due course whether an Impact Assessment is required for the implementation of any of the specific measures, in line with the prevailing HM Government guidance on Impact Assessments.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will place in the Library all responses to his Department’s consultation on local authority parking.

Penny Mordaunt

We have placed in the Library of the House, a copy of the detailed summary of the 800 responses to the consultation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what statistics his Department holds on the use of fixed penalty notices in each local authority area.

Brandon Lewis

The most recent official statistics (for 2009-10) show that 9 million parking fines were issued a year by local authorities in England. From 1997-98 to 2010-11, local authority total income from sales, fees and charges in England from parking rose from £608 million to £1.25 billion; net profits from parking rose from £223 million to £512 million in the same period. A survey by LV= car insurance last year estimated that councils hand out 10.7 million fines a year across the UK, and British motorists pay out over £30 million each month in parking fines.

Councils in England were forecast to make £635 million net profit from parking charges fines in 2013-14. Yet legislation passed by Parliament is clear that parking charges and fines should not be used to raise general revenue. However, some councils are raising money illegally from parking.

Last July, the High Court ruled that one London borough had illegally hiked parking charges to raise general revenue. The BBC television programme, Inside Out, also drew to my attention parking contracts signed by local authorities where outsourced parking wardens are rewarded for issuing more fines – in flagrant breach of the Government’s operational guidance to councils. The Local Government Association’s own participatory budgeting tool has also encouraged councils to raise parking charges and fines as a source of general revenue.

Such practices are a breach of fundamental constitutional principles from Magna Carta, the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights: taxes should not be levied without recourse to Parliament, and the justice system should not be corrupted to raise money.

Higher parking charges and more parking fines were the explicit policy of the Labour Government. Labour DCLG Ministers called for councils to charge for more services, including parking, bemoaned that: ‘Only one in five councils are using charging to the full potential… [such as for] reducing congestion’ (Speech to the Local Government Association, 2 July 2008). Planning guidance issued by the Labour Government in 2001 (so-called PPG13) told councils to hike parking charges and adopt aggressive enforcement to discourage drivers.

My Department holds information on councils’ income from penalty charge notices. In my answer of 12 March 2014, Official Report, Column 260W, I placed in the Library a table showing the amount of money raised in parking fines in each local authority in England over time, which illustrates the need to reverse Labour’s approach.

Since 2010, this Government has already:

· Scrapped Labour’s Whitehall policy that pressured councils to hike car parking charges as a ‘demand management measure’ to discourage car use (PPG13).

· Removed Whitehall restrictions which restricted the provision of off-street parking spaces;

· Abolished Labour’s Whitehall policy which inhibited parking charge competition between council areas, and instead introduced a new policy that says parking charges should not undermine the vitality of town centres;

· Introduced a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate;

· Issued new planning practice guidance on removing street clutter and encouraging the provision of shopper-friendly parking space provision; and

· Introduced the local retention of business rates, which means that councils benefit from business and retail growth in town centres, rather than just hiking parking charges.

In addition, the Government recently announced a further series of reforms:

· Stopping the abuse or misuse of on-street parking CCTV on an industrial scale. Parking CCTV spy cars were introduced by the last Labour Government.

· Reforming operational parking guidance so it is less heavy handed with motorists, prevents over-aggressive action by bailiffs, positively supports local shops and clearly reinforces the prohibition against parking being used to generate profit;

· Introducing mandatory 10 minute “grace periods” at the end of on-street paid and free parking, and off-street municipal parking;

· Implementing a new right to allow local residents and local firms to demand a review of parking in their area, including charges and the use of yellow lines;

· Proposing a widening of the powers of parking adjudicators, and updating guidance so the public know when they can be awarded costs at tribunals;

· Trialling a 25% discount for drivers at appeal stage, reversing the current disincentive for drivers with a legitimate case to appeal;

· Changing guidance so drivers parking at an out-of-order meter are not fined if there are no alternative ways to pay;

· Maintaining a freeze on parking penalty charges for the remainder of this Parliament; and

· Updating the local government Transparency Code to increase information about local parking charges and the number of parking spaces.

Unreasonable parking charges and fines push up hard-working people’s cost of living. If parking is too expensive or difficult, shoppers will simply drive to out of town supermarkets or just shop online, undermining the vitality of town centres and leading to ‘ghost town’ high streets. But, by rejecting Labour’s approach, this Government is standing up for hard-working people and local shops.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how much his Department spent in legal fees during the judicial review brought against his Department on the solar farm at Ellough Airfield, Suffolk.

Kris Hopkins

Planning casework is a quasi-judicial function of the department, and as was the case under the last Administration, it attracts a high volume of legal challenges. This is particularly the case in light of the long-term growth of both judicial review and the growing creep of European Union directives, regulations and case law.

Yet to place the Department’s spending in context, I would observe that the Department spent £1.7 million in external lawyers’ fees in 2009-10 (excluding Treasury Solicitors), in 2013-14, the figure had fallen to £699,000.

The proposed application for a sizeable solar farm development in Suffolk was refused by Waveney District Council. That decision was appealed by the developer, was recovered for Ministerial decision, and that appeal was refused by the Secretary of State. The decision letter outlines the reasons, but particular issues included the effect upon the character and appearance of the countryside.

The appellant, Lark Energy, challenged the decision in the High Court; four of the five grounds of challenge were rejected by the Court. The challenge however succeeded on just one ground – a technical point of law on the application of the statutory test for appeals under the relevant planning legislation. The Department spent £6,596 (ex VAT) in defending this challenge. The appeal is now back with the Department for re-determination.

Equally, I would observe that a week later, the High Court upheld the decision of the Secretary of State in a recovered appeal to refuse a proposed six turbine wind farm on the Somerset Levels, following its initial refusal by Sedgemoor District Council. The applicants, Ecotricity, were ordered to pay the Department’s costs (which may be in the region of £9,000).

All decisions on recovered appeals are taken by the Secretary of State on their merits, following due process and after careful consideration of both the public inquiry evidence and the independent Inspector’s recommendation.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what estimate he has made of the additional cost of additional appeals to the Parking Traffic Appeals Service if a 25 per cent discount is given to motorists who lose an appeal at tribunal against the issue of a parking ticket.

Brandon Lewis

As recommended by the Transport Select Committee (Local authority parking enforcement, HC 118, October 2013), the Government intends to work in partnership with a local authority to assess introducing a 25% discount to motorists who lose an appeal at tribunal level. This trial will allow us to evaluate the impacts, before rolling out the policy nationally.

The underlying policy rationale is the current lack of any discount at an appeal stage (but with a discount operating if the driver does not appeal) acts as a disincentive for drivers with genuine cases to appeal. I would remind the rt. hon. Member that parking fines are a quasi-judicial process, not a source of revenue for councils. This Government believes in fairness, in contrast to the Labour Government which actively told councils to adopt aggressive parking enforcement practices.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 17 June 2014, Official Report, column 578W, on rent, what his policy is on developing rent review clauses which are index-linked to inflation in a model for longer-term tenancies in the private rented sector.

Kris Hopkins

I refer the rt. hon. Member to my answer to him of 17 June 2014, Official Report, Column 578W, which outlines the Government’s policy and our opposition to the Labour Party calls for rent controls.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when he expects to consult on the review of the General Permitted Development Order announced in Budget 2014.

Nick Boles

We will consult in due course. The consultation will include proposals on the wider retail use class announced in the Budget 2014.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Hilary Benn on 2014-06-25.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many expressions of interest in response to the Locally-led Garden Cities Prospectus have been (a) received and (b) considered to date.

Kris Hopkins

Garden cities are not just housing developments: they are extremely complex infrastructure projects, and high quality proposals will take time to develop. We have had a number of positive informal discussions with localities in response to our locally led garden cities prospectus, published in April. We expect Expressions of Interest to be made formally once proposals are properly worked up.