You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

1 Sept 2003 : Column 689W—continued

Tenancy Money

Dr. Desmond Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place copies of the submissions to his consultation paper, "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" in the Library. [126758]

Keith Hill: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 16 July 2003, Official Report, column 1362.

Dr. Desmond Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list those persons and organisations who responded to the consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection", broken down by (a) landlords, (b) tenants and (c) others. [126759]

Keith Hill: The information requested is as follows:

Landlords:


Tenants:


Others:


1 Sept 2003 : Column 690W

1 Sept 2003 : Column 691W

Dr. Desmond Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 2WS, on what basis he calculated that the cost of a national tenancy deposit scheme would be £19 million per annum and the benefits equal to £20 million. [126812]

Keith Hill: The calculations for both these figures are to be found in Annex 1 of the consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection". They start from a figure derived from the Survey of English Housing (SEH), that there are 127,000 tenancies ending each year in which there is a dispute about the deposit. The total cost is found from multiplying this figure by the average cost of each adjudication in the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), £150. The benefit is found from multiplying the derived figure on deposit disputes by the average level of deposit (£510, SEH data) and by the average proportion of the total deposit an independent adjudicator would consider should be returned to the tenant (31 per cent. taken from data on disputes in the TDS).

Mr. Pound: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of (a) the maximum annual adjudication costs and (b) the likely annual adjudication costs of a statutory rent deposit protection scheme. [127050]

Keith Hill: As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) mentioned in his statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 2WS, it is estimated that adjudication costs of a statutory scheme would be £19 million. This is a best estimate based on survey findings of tenancy numbers and level of deposit, statistics on perceived prevalence of wrongful withholding of deposit moneys, and the adjudication cost per dispute in the pilot scheme.

Mr. Pound: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the amount of interest that would be generated by holding all rent deposit money in a single custodial scheme. [127051]

Keith Hill: The consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" provides an assessment in paragraph 35 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1. It noted that if £790 million (the amount estimated to be currently held in deposits) was held in a single custodial deposit scheme for a year, it would raise £31.6 million in interest (calculated at the Bank of England's then current base-rate).

Mr. Pound: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses were received to the consultation on "Tenancy money: probity and protection"; how many responses were received from (a) individual landlords and agents and their representative bodies and (b) individual tenants and their representative bodies; of those respondents who were not individual landlords, agents and tenants or their representative bodies, what percentage of respondents were (i) in favour and (ii) not in favour of a statutory custodial scheme to protect tenants' deposits. [127052]

Keith Hill: Ninety-eight responses were received. Of these, 26 were from landlords and nine from landlord organisations; eight from letting agents and five from agent organisations; three from tenants and four from tenant organisations/representatives; 13 from local

1 Sept 2003 : Column 692W

authorities; 24 from other organisations (of which 16 were public or voluntary sector); two from other interested individuals; and four from respondents whose type was not known.

Of the 43 respondents not in categories involved in letting or their representatives, 30 responded to the options concerning whether there should be Government intervention; and if so, of the three options which each included a statutory custodial scheme, which option they favoured. Two favoured no intervention; four favoured or appeared to favour a statutory scheme, but with no further details; favoured a custodial scheme as the sole option; two favoured a custodial scheme plus approved insured alternatives; five favoured a custodial scheme plus membership of an approved trade association or accreditation scheme that would provide insurance. There were four further options involving deposits (that did not involved a statutory custodial scheme), which respondents could indicate either instead of or in addition to the ones mentioned here.

Waste Disposal Applications

Dr. Whitehead: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the refusal rate for waste disposal applications within the terms of county matters was for the last four quarters of the year. [126918]

Keith Hill: For 'County Matter' applications, the provisional numbers supplied to this Office for the four quarters ending 31 March 2003 show a total of 105 refused applications among the 1,154 decisions on waste applications. This is a refusal rate of 9 per cent. As there are relatively small numbers of 'County Matter' applications made and decided each quarter, refusal rates for individual quarters can be quite volatile. In 2002–03, the quarterly refusal rates ranged from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent.

CABINET OFFICE

European Constitution

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with (a) colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European constitution. [124782]

Mr. Alexander: As part of the normal Whitehall process my officials have had regular contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to discuss all aspects of the Convention, including legislative competences. My officials have also had regular contact with Member and Accession States to discuss issues arising in the Convention. In line with exemptions 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to disclose details about internal discussions, or information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs.

1 Sept 2003 : Column 693W

Next Section Index Home Page