---

24 Mar 2004 : Column 906W—continued

Petitions

Bob Spink: To ask the Leader of the House if he will make it Government policy to ensure that (a) all petitions presented in the House are responded to by Government departments within five days and (b) where the petition requires a response from another body, it is responded to within 10 days. [162910]

Mr. Woolas: No. I believe that five days would be an unrealistic deadline for Government Departments to respond to petitions, and, if imposed, would lead to less helpful observations. In some cases, it may not be appropriate for the Government to respond to a petition at all. However, the Modernisation Committee is examining the handling of petitions as part of its inquiry into Connecting with the Public and my right hon. Friend is willing to contemplate change.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Aggregates (Removal)

Norman Baker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what environmental criteria he requires to be met before authorising the removal of aggregates from the sea bed. [162901]

Keith Hill: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gives careful and detailed consideration to all marine minerals dredging proposals and will only approve them once fully satisfied that there will be no significant harm to the marine environment and no harm to the coastline. A Coastal Impact Study must be produced for each proposal. All applications are subject to Environmental Impact Assessment and must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement. Each

24 Mar 2004 : Column 907W

application is subject to wide publicity and consultation with, among others, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), DEFRA's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science (CEFAS), the Environment Agency and English Nature.

Council Housing

Dr. Iddon: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2004, Official Report, columns 447–48W, on council housing, whether the local authorities listed in the table chose the large scale voluntary transfer option; and if he will list the local authorities who chose the (a) Arms Length Management Organisation and (b) private finance initiative option whose tenants rejected these options. [163683]

Keith Hill: Five local authorities that had unsuccessful transfer ballots later had successful transfer ballots and have transferred their housing stock to a registered social landlord. These local authorities are:

Torbay

Mendip

Mid Bedfordshire

Maidstone

Cherwell

Camden is the only local authority that recommended an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to its tenants and secured a place on the ALMO programme, which subsequently had its recommendation rejected by tenants.

Camden is also the only local authority where tenants have rejected a Private Finance Initiative Bid.

Council Tax

Mr. Kidney: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the maximum council tax is that a local authority may set for (a) a second home and (b) an empty home; and to what purposes the local authority may apply the proceeds of the council tax received in each case. [162220]

Mr. Raynsford: From 1 April 2004, the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/3011) allow local billing authorities to reduce the discount on most second homes to 10 per cent. and on long-term empty homes to zero. There is a national exemption from council tax for unfurnished dwellings which are vacant for six months or less. The maximum council tax which could be charged on a second home is therefore 90 per cent. and the maximum council tax which could be charged on a long-term empty home is 100 per cent. Council tax from second homes and empty homes can be used in the same way as council tax from other property. The proceeds are shared, between billing and precepting authorities. The effect of changing the discounts on second and long-term empty homes is to raise the tax base of an area and so local authorities in that area can raise more council tax. The Government will not adjust grant because of the extra income generated by reducing the second homes discount. This means local authorities in the area have the choice to spend this on local priorities or to have a lower council tax or precept than would

24 Mar 2004 : Column 908W

otherwise have been the case. In the case of long-term empty property, the Government intend to adjust grant so that extra revenue will not be retained locally.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Prosser: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to (a) change staffing levels and (b) encourage (i) voluntary retirement and (ii) voluntary redundancies in the Department. [161476]

Yvette Cooper: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing its staffing resources as part of its business planning process and in the light of recommendations in the Lyons Review and the work currently under way in relation to the Gershon Efficiency Review. There is no current programme to encourage voluntary retirement or voluntary redundancies in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Housing

Mr. Reed: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the revenue lost to Charnwood borough council in 2003–04 through exemption for council tax of houses of multiple occupation occupied solely by students. [162016]

Keith Hill: I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 17 March 2004, Official Report, column 379W. The council tax revenue lost to Charnwood borough council through exemption for council tax of houses of multiple occupation occupied solely by students is compensated by Charnwood borough council receiving an equivalent amount of additional Revenue Support Grant before floors and ceilings.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how undertakings by local authorities to rehouse (a) released prisoners and (b) members of the forces released from service, together with their families, are maintained when councils transfer their housing stock to registered social landlords. [162766]

Keith Hill: After transfer local housing authorities retain their statutory functions in relation to homelessness and the allocation of housing. The Housing Allocation, Homelessness and Stock Transfer—A Guide to Key Issues issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in January 2004 advises that it is crucial for housing authorities to negotiate nomination agreements with the transfer landlord and other partner RSLs to ensure that they can continue to discharge their statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what central Government spending was allocated since 1999, and to which authorities, to (a) paying off housing debt after large scale voluntary transfer, (b) grants and payments to Arms Length Management Organisations and (c) contributions to the cost of (i) fees, (ii) consultancies and (iii) information campaigns in ballots for transfer which had a (A) successful and (B) unsuccessful outcomes. [162769]

Keith Hill: Since 1999 there have been 10 large scale voluntary transfers where the receipt was insufficient and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister made an overhanging debt payment. The payments are tabled as follows.

24 Mar 2004 : Column 909W

Financial year	Local authority	£ million
1999–2000	Burnley	21.0
2001–02	Coventry	111.7
2001–02	Calderdale	64.6
2001–02	Blackburn with Darwen	78.9
2002–03	St. Helens	87.2
2002–03	Redcar and Cleveland	25.4
2002–03	Knowsley	126.1
2002–03	Carlisle	18.0
2002–03	Bradford	182.8
2002–03	Walsall	108.7

The following allocations have been made to local authorities setting up Arms Length Management Organisations under Rounds 1–3 of the programme:

Round 1 ALMOs	Allocation 2002–04 (£ million)
Ashfield*	24.0
Derby*	31.1
Hounslow*	35.0
Kirklees*	62.5
Rochdale*	24.2
Stockton-on-Tees*	44.5
Westminster*	20.3
Wigan*	58.3

Round 2 ALMOs	Allocation 2003–05 (£ million)
Barnsley*	48.2
Blyth Valley*	17.5
Bolton*	53.0
Brent*	33.8
Carrick*	7.2
Cheltenham*	15.0
Colchester	13.5
Hillingdon*	16.6
Kensington and Chelsea*	21.7
Leeds East	14.7
Leeds North East*	10.5
Leeds North West	16.1
Leeds South East	10.4
Leeds South	22.6
Leeds West*	18.3
Oldham*	36.0
Salford	53.5
Waltham Forest	28.2

Round 3 ALMOs	Allocation 2004–06 (£ million)
Barnet	19.0
Camden	45.0
Easington	23.6
Gateshead	63.0
Harrow	5.0
High Peak	4.7
Islington	24.9
Newcastle	64.0
Poole	17.4
Sheffield (partial)	49.7
Solihull	21.0
South Lakeland	4.2
Warrington	18.3

All allocations are conditional on the local authority receiving approval to delegate its housing management functions to the ALMO under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985 and the ALMO receiving at least a two star rating from the Housing Inspectorate. Those marked *

24 Mar 2004 : Column 910W

have fulfilled these two conditions and funding has therefore been confirmed. Salford and Camden have since withdrawn from the ALMO programme.

Expenditure incurred in carrying out the statutory consultation required under section 106A of the Housing Act 1985, including the cost of any ballot, is considered to be in connection with the management of dwellings held within the Housing Management Account and therefore must be charged to that account.

No payment is made by central Government towards the cost of such consultation and figures for the total expenditure on this, including the cost of fees, consultants and information campaigns by local authorities, are not held centrally.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what steps he has taken to consult council tenants about the Fourth Option of allowing councils to retain and improve their council house stock; [162931]

(2) what consultations he has held with (a) councils and (b) the Local Government Association about the Fourth Option of allowing councils to retain and improve their council housing stock. [162933]

Keith Hill: There has been no need for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to consult with individual council tenants or local government associations about local authority stock retention. All local authorities are aware that they can retain their housing stock if they can meet the decent homes standard through existing funding streams.

---