---

Travel Concessions (Middlesbrough)

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what travel concessions are available, and how many people are eligible per group, (a) in total, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [17798]

Ms Keeble: The Transport Act 2000 requires local authorities and PTEs in England and Wales to provide half-price fares on local buses to pensioners and disabled people, with no charge for the pass. In addition, the Transport Act 1985 gives local authorities discretion to provide a more generous scheme (eg less than half-fare or free travel; discounted travel on trains, metros, trams, ferries; or cross-boundary travel). In London, the Freedom Pass scheme is covered by the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Broadly 5.5 million pensioners and 1.5 million disabled people are eligible for these concessions.

Regional or constituency data are not held centrally.

Rough Sleepers Unit

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money from the rough sleepers unit has been invested (a) in total and (b) broken down by area since the creation of the unit. [17797]

Ms Keeble: The rough sleepers unit has a programme budget (both capital and revenue) of £200 million over three years. In London, a total of £159 million has been invested over three years drawn from funding streams previously administered by separate Departments. Outside London, where local authorities continue to take the lead in developing local strategies, the unit has invested £39 million under the homelessness action programme. The unit's budget is ring-fenced.

Total grant for three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, based on actual expenditure in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 and forecast expenditure in 2001–02£ million

	Total
London	158.894
South West	6.185
South East	6.805
West Midlands	2.227
East Midlands	3.268
Eastern	3.204
Yorks and the Humber	2.532
North West	5.378
North East	1.602
National	7.675
Total	197.77

Notes:

1. The national figure covers projects like the National Homelessness Advice Service where it is not possible to breakdown by region

2. The London figure includes moneys not directly administered by the RSU (ie SHMG, capital and S.30) but which are part of our overall budget

23 Nov 2001 : Column: 506W

Special Purpose Vehicles

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has for special purpose vehicles to be created to undertake works in connection with the replacement of the (a) south-west and (b) south and central passenger franchises; and if he will place the plans in the Library; [18218]

(2) what plans exist for special purpose vehicles to be created to undertake works in connection with the development of the East London Line; and if he will place plans in the Library; [17788]

(3) if he will list those projects for which special purpose vehicles are being established; [17785]

(4) what role the company which replaced Railtrack will have in the special purpose vehicles set up for rail infrastructure projects; [17782]

(5) if he will publish the (a) framework and (b) timetable for the establishment of special purpose vehicles to undertake rail infrastructure projects; [17783]

(6) what research he has undertaken as to the suitability of using special purpose vehicles for rail infrastructure projects. [17784]

Mr. Byers: The framework for special purpose vehicles for rail investment projects is currently being developed by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and my Department. The SRA strategic plan will identify the investment projects for which an SPV may be appropriate.

Planning

Ms Shipley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish the Green Paper on planning. [18013]

Ms Keeble: Shortly.

Domestic Sprinklers

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the use of domestic sprinklers to prevent death and damage by fire in domestic homes. [17391]

23 Nov 2001 : Column: 507W

Dr. Whitehead: My Department regularly receives representations from organisations calling for the greater use of domestic sprinklers.

The Government recognise that domestic sprinklers have a role to play in promoting life safety, particularly for the most vulnerable. The Fire Safety Advisory Board will continue to assess their value in the light of emerging standards and improvements in sprinkler technology. We have, therefore, recently commissioned research into the benefits of sprinklers in residential properties, including the preparation of a regulatory impact assessment. The results and conclusions from this work should be available in a little over two years from now.

Additionally, the housing health and safety rating system, which we propose should replace the housing fitness standard, includes guidance in respect of hazards from fire. Although not mandatory for houses in multiple occupation, sprinklers may well be recommended where the risk of fire is high.

Vehicle Specification

Mr. Neil Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what decision he has reached following the consultation exercise on the European Commission's proposal to introduce pedestrian protection features in new cars by means of a negotiated agreement with vehicle manufacturers. [18270]

Mr. Jamieson: We have decided that we should support the negotiated approach in this case. The most significant factor is that it offers the quickest route to introducing worthwhile pedestrian protection into the design of new car models.

The first phase of the agreement offers about 25 per cent. of the fatality reduction and 60 per cent. of the serious injury reduction expected from the European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee (EEVC) proposal on pedestrian protection. The full EEVC benefits are to be achieved in the second phase.

I have recently written to the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committees, informing them of the Government's position.

Council Tax Discounts

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will consult on the proposed changes to the council tax discounts on second and long-term empty homes. [18381]

23 Nov 2001 : Column: 508W

Mr. Raynsford: I am today publishing proposals to give local authorities discretion to reduce or end the council tax discounts which owners of second and long- term empty homes currently receive.

The Government's proposals are set out in "Council Tax: a consultation paper on proposed changes for second homes and long-term empty homes". It fulfils the Government's commitment, made in the rural White Paper last year, to consult on this issue.

The Government are also seeking views on how the extra revenue raised should be used: whether it should be retained locally and whether it should be used for specific purposes such as housing. We are also proposing that councils should have the discretion to give council tax discounts for local reasons such as where homes are hit by flooding or in cases of individual hardship.

Our proposals would give local authorities the flexibility to choose the best option for their communities.

In some areas, second-home owners bring a much-needed boost to the local economy but, in other areas, a high demand for second homes is pricing local people out of the property market and undermining the viability of local services. Equally, homes left empty for long periods can blight local communities and encourage crime and antisocial behaviour. The proposals we are announcing today could be used to help encourage owners of empty homes to bring them back into use.

More than half a million properties which are no one's main residence currently receive a 50 per cent. council tax discount. Over half of these are long-term empty properties. Potentially, up to £200 million could be raised in England by ending the council tax discounts on second and long-term empty homes.

The Government are asking for responses to their consultation by 15 February 2002.

Planning Applications

Richard Younger-Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the latest annual figures for the number of planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in England and Wales by (a) region, (b) the number of application passed, (c) the number sent to appeal and (d) the number of successful appeals; and if he will provide the same figures for the previous 10 years. [13595R]

Ms Keeble [pursuant to her reply, 14 November 2001, c. 726–28W]: The information for England for 1990–91 to 2000–01 is in the table.

Planning applications and appeals against refusal: England 1990–91 to 2000–01

	Planning applications(2)			Appeals against refusal(3)			Percentage of
	Decided	Granted	Refused	Received	Decided	Allowed	appeals allowed
2000–01
North East	14.7	13.6	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.1	42
North West	44.3	40.0	4.2	1.1	1.0	0.4	39
Yorkshire and the Humber	34.5	30.8	3.6	0.9	0.7	0.3	37
East Midlands	35.0	31.7	3.3	0.8	0.7	0.3	35
West Midlands	37.0	32.5	4.5	1.1	0.9	0.3	35
East of England	55.0	48.2	6.8	1.8	1.6	0.5	33
London	53.5	43.8	9.7	2.2	1.9	0.6	32
South East	89.0	77.1	11.9	3.3	2.9	1.0	33
South West	56.7	49.8	6.8	1.8	1.6	0.5	33
England	419.6	367.7	51.8	13.4	11.6	3.9	34
1999–2000
North East	14.3	13.3	0.9	0.3	0.2	0.1	33
North West	42.1	38.0	4.1	1.1	1.0	0.4	39
Yorkshire and the Humber	33.1	29.8	3.3	0.8	0.7	0.2	34
East Midlands	32.9	29.9	3.0	0.8	0.7	0.2	34
West Midlands	35.5	31.6	3.9	1.0	0.9	0.4	37
East of England	51.7	45.6	6.1	1.7	1.6	0.5	31
London	49.8	41.5	8.3	2.0	1.8	0.6	33
South East	84.2	73.2	10.8	3.1	2.8	0.9	32
South West	52.8	46.9	5.9	1.6	1.4	0.5	33
England	396.3	350.0	46.3	12.3	11.2	3.7	33
1998–99
North East	14.4	13.4	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.1	36
North West	40.5	36.5	4.1	1.1	0.9	0.4	41
Yorkshire and the Humber	32.7	29.2	3.5	0.8	0.8	0.3	37
East Midlands	31.6	28.6	3.0	0.8	1.7	0.2	31
West Midlands	35.0	30.7	4.3	1.1	1.0	0.4	37
East of England	48.8	42.8	6.0	1.8	1.6	0.6	36
London	49.0	40.8	8.3	1.9	1.7	0.6	33
South East	80.3	69.7	10.5	3.1	2.8	0.9	34
South West	50.2	44.5	5.7	1.6	1.4	0.4	30
England	382.6	336.3	46.4	12.5	11.3	3.9	35
1997–98
North East	14.4	13.4	1.1	0.3	0.3	0.1	31
North West	40.5	36.5	4.0	1.2	1.0	0.4	38
Yorkshire and the Humber	32.9	29.7	3.2	0.9	0.8	0.3	36
East Midlands	32.5	29.3	3.3	0.9	0.8	0.3	35
West Midlands	33.9	29.6	4.2	1.1	1.0	0.4	37
East of England	47.2	41.2	6.0	1.8	1.6	0.5	32
London	45.9	38.4	7.5	1.9	1.7	0.6	36
South East	78.2	68.3	9.9	3.1	2.7	0.9	32
South West	49.7	44.2	5.5	1.6	1.4	0.5	34
England	375.2	330.6	44.6	12.8	11.3	3.9	34
1996–97
North East	14.4	13.3	1.1	0.3	0.3	0.1	38
North West	39.2	35.0	4.2	1.2	1.0	0.4	35
Yorkshire and the Humber	32.3	28.9	3.4	0.9	0.8	0.2	31
East Midlands	30.8	27.8	3.0	0.9	0.8	0.3	34
West Midlands	32.9	28.9	4.0	1.0	0.9	0.3	33
East of England	43.2	37.6	5.6	1.8	1.6	0.5	35
London	42.3	35.2	7.1	1.8	1.6	0.6	37
South East	71.1	61.9	9.2	2.9	2.5	0.9	35
South West	47.1	42.0	5.1	1.6	1.3	0.5	34
England	353.3	310.8	42.5	12.4	10.7	3.7	35
1995–96
North East	14.4	13.3	1.2	0.4	0.3	0.1	38
North West	39.0	34.8	4.2	1.1	1.0	0.4	36
Yorkshire and the Humber	33.4	29.6	3.7	1.0	0.8	0.3	30
East Midlands	31.5	28.1	3.3	1.0	0.9	0.3	33
West Midlands	32.2	28.2	4.0	1.1	1.0	0.3	35
East of England	42.9	37.3	5.6	1.8	1.6	0.5	33
London	40.3	33.8	6.5	1.8	1.5	0.6	37
South East	69.9	60.9	9.3	3.1	2.7	0.9	32
South West	45.3	40.1	5.2	1.7	1.4	0.4	31
England	348.8	305.9	42.9	13.0	11.3	3.8	33
1994–95
North East	15.9	14.6	1.4	0.4	0.4	0.1	32
North West	42.4	37.8	4.6	1.3	1.2	0.5	40
Yorkshire and the Humber	35.7	31.6	4.1	1.1	1.0	0.3	31
East Midlands	33.6	30.0	3.6	1.1	1.0	0.3	31
West Midlands	34.0	29.9	4.1	1.2	1.1	0.4	36
East of England	45.3	39.4	5.9	1.9	1.7	0.6	31
London	40.7	34.4	6.3	1.6	1.4	0.5	35
South East	71.7	62.4	9.3	3.1	2.7	0.9	32
South West	48.5	42.6	5.9	1.8	1.6	0.5	32
England	368.0	322.8	45.2	13.6	12.1	4.0	33
1993–94
North East	16.8	15.4	1.4	0.4	0.4	0.1	33
North West	43.2	38.5	4.7	1.2	1.2	0.4	37
Yorkshire and the Humber	35.9	31.7	4.1	1.1	1.0	0.3	27
East Midlands	33.4	29.8	3.6	1.0	1.0	0.3	33
West Midlands	35.1	30.9	4.2	1.2	1.0	0.4	35
East of England	45.0	39.1	5.9	1.9	1.7	0.5	33
London	39.4	33.0	6.4	1.6	1.5	0.6	37
South East	68.6	59.3	9.3	3.0	2.8	0.9	32
South West	48.6	42.6	6.0	1.9	1.7	0.5	31
England	366.1	320.4	45.7	13.4	12.2	4.0	33
1992–93
North East	16.7	15.1	1.6	0.4	0.4	0.2	39
North West	44.3	38.6	5.7	1.5	1.4	0.6	40
Yorkshire and the Humber	35.9	30.9	5.0	1.3	1.2	0.4	31
East Midlands	33.4	29.2	4.2	1.2	1.1	0.4	34
West Midlands	35.4	30.2	5.2	1.3	1.1	0.4	31
East of England	44.5	37.8	6.7	2.1	1.9	0.6	33
London	38.6	31.3	7.4	1.9	1.7	0.6	36
South East	68.0	57.0	10.9	3.6	3.2	1.1	34
South West	48.7	41.3	7.3	2.4	2.2	0.7	32
England	365.4	311.4	54.0	15.7	14.2	4.8	34
1991–92
North East	17.3	15.5	1.9	0.5	0.4	0.1	34
North West	49.3	42.0	7.3	1.8	1.6	0.6	36
Yorkshire and the Humber	40.9	34.4	6.5	1.6	1.4	0.4	30
East Midlands	36.7	31.1	5.6	1.5	1.4	0.5	33
West Midlands	39.0	32.6	6.4	1.7	1.4	0.4	30
East of England	49.7	40.8	8.9	2.7	2.5	0.8	31
London	42.5	33.5	9.0	2.2	2.0	0.7	35
South East	74.6	60.5	14.1	4.5	4.0	1.3	33
South West	54.1	44.1	10.0	3.1	2.8	0.9	32
England	404.2	334.5	69.7	19.5	17.5	5.7	32
1990–91
North East	17.5	15.5	1.9	0.5	0.5	0.1	30
North West	53.0	44.2	8.8	2.0	1.8	0.7	38
Yorkshire and the Humber	42.7	34.9	7.8	1.7	1.5	0.5	32
East Midlands	40.1	33.0	7.2	1.7	1.5	0.5	33
West Midlands	41.5	34.0	7.5	1.8	1.6	0.5	32
East of England	55.3	43.5	11.8	3.3	2.9	0.9	32
London	44.8	34.6	10.3	2.5	2.2	0.8	36
South East	82.6	65.0	17.6	5.3	4.6	1.5	32
South West	60.7	47.7	13.1	3.6	3.2	1.0	32
England	438.3	352.4	85.9	22.4	19.7	6.5	33

⁽²⁾ Section 70 planning applications, ie excludes applications for listed buildings, advertisements and conservation area consents

⁽³⁾ Figures relate to the number of appeals against section 70 planning applications refused in the year, not the number of appeals received in the year

23 Nov 2001 : Column: 511W

---