| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 July 2006 : Column 1550W—continued
Firefighting
Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many deliberate (a) vehicle fires and (b) fires there were in West Suffolk in each year since 1995. [82716]
Angela E. Smith: Information on fires for the West Suffolk constituency is not available centrally. The following table shows deliberate primary fires by location, attended by the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service since 1995.
| Deliberate fires by location and year, Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service | ||
| Road vehicles fires | Total fires | |
| Notes: 1. Figures are based on the sampled data grossed to fire and rescue service totals. 2. Figures exclude any fires in November 2002 and January-February 2003 strike periods. Source: Fire and Rescue Service returns to DCLG. | ||
Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many malicious false alarm calls were attended by the Fire and Rescue Service in West Suffolk in each year since 1995. [82731]
Angela E. Smith: Information on malicious false alarm calls for the West Suffolk constituency is not available centrally. The following table shows malicious false alarms attended by the Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service since 1995.
| Malicious false alarms, Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service | |
| Number of false alarms | |
| Note: Figures exclude any false alarms in November 2002 and January-February 2003 strike periods. Source: Fire and Rescue Service returns to DCLG. | |
Golf Courses
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs treats the greens of golf courses as subject to business rates if the green is (a) private property and (b) common land. [83568]
Mr. Woolas: The Valuation Office Agency, an executive agency of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, has the statutory responsibility for assessing properties for rating purposes. As a non-domestic property, a golf course will usually be liable to business rates. Being an integral part of the course, the greens are valued as part of the whole rather than attracting any separate liability. The basis of valuation for rating purposes of a golf course applies equally to private, public or municipal courses, although the level of value will vary to reflect differences in quality and geographical location. The greens of a golf course are therefore subject to business rates regardless of whether they lie on private property or common land.
There are exceptions, however, depending on the facts of the case. It may be that a golf club is not considered to be in exclusive occupation of the course, thereby failing one of the requirements for rateability. Alternatively, a course may be exempt from rating if it is held as part of a larger public park and available for free and unrestricted use by the public.
Government Offices
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which organisations were consulted in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister/Treasury Review of Government Offices; and if she will place in the Library a copy of the (a) Race Impact Assessment and (b) departmental response. [82589]
Angela E. Smith: Existing studies, stakeholder surveys and peer reviews fed into the evidence base for the Government office (GO) review, as did views from all sponsor Departments of GOs, from some GO staff and from the East Midlands Regional Development Agency, the London Development Agency, West Midlands Regional Assembly, the North East Regional Assembly and the Local Government Association.
The Race Impact Assessment for the review is expected to be published in September and a copy will be placed in the Library of both houses.
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much each Government Office spent on consultants from (a) administrative and (b) programme expenditure between April 2005 and March 2006. [82590]
Angela E. Smith: Government office expenditure on consultants from administrative expenditure between April 2005 and March 2006 were:
| Government office | 2005-06 expenditure |
Programme budgets administered by the Government offices are the responsibility of the Secretaries of State for the relevant sponsor Departments. They have therefore not been entered.
Graffiti/Fly-posting
Mr. Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much each London borough spent on graffiti removal in each year since 2001. [83423]
Angela E. Smith: Figures are not available for the amount each London borough spent on graffiti removal each year since 2001. However, Graffiti in London, a report by the London Assembly Graffiti Investigative committee in May 2002 estimated the annual expenditure in London boroughs at £7 million.
Rosie Cooper: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding West Lancashire local authorities have sought under section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 to tackle graffiti and fly-posting. [83554]
Angela E. Smith: I have been asked to reply.
West Lancashire district council has not sought any funding under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to address graffiti and fly posting issues.
Interests (Code of Conduct)
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what advice she offers parish and town councillors on how to interpret the code of conduct on declaring interests. [83247]
Mr. Woolas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has offered no advice about the code of conduct, which is a matter for the independent Standards Board for England. The Standards Board has issued guidance for parish and town councillors on the requirements under the code to declare interests.
Local Authority Targets
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what plans the Government have to assist local authorities to meet their targets to (a) reduce sickness and absence levels and (b) for processing housing benefit claims. [82408]
Mr. Woolas: (a) the Department for Communities and Local Government plans to continue working collaboratively with Local Government Employers, the organisation responsible for monitoring and supporting local authorities on attendance management. Work includes good practice guidance, case studies and accessible (including web based) advice on a range of management interventions available for different local circumstances.
Good practice on attendance management in local authorities sits within a well-developed Performance Management Framework including:
the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) which covers managing sickness absence;
corporate performance indicators (‘BVPIs’) covering sickness absence which mean that individual LA data is audited and therefore credible and robust;
the 2005 Local Government Pay and Workforce Strategy, and more recently a strand of the ‘Productive Time/ business process improvement’ element of the Efficiency Agenda.
Moreover, the Government are planning a series of seminars starting from the autumn to provide leadership and support to senior local authority managers to tackle improving attendance management and efficiency.
(b) The Department for Work and Pensions plans to continue helping local authorities improve their performance in processing housing benefit claims through a programme that includes consultancy support, maintaining clear performance standards, investment and, where possible, simplification of the scheme.
Local Government
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar of 27 June 2006, Official Report, column 298W, on local government, how many written representations her Department has received from (a) district and (b) county councils which have not supported the principle of unitary status; and from which councils such representations have come. [82931]
Mr. Woolas: Our records show receipt of 12 representations from the following district council members and officers which have not supported the principle of unitary local government:
Bolsover
Chichester
Durham
Horsham
Shrewsbury and Atcham
Tandridge
Taunton Deane
Tendring
Wealden
Chesterfield
Hambleton
North Warwickshire
Richmondshire
Our records show four representations from the following county council members and officers which have not supported the principle of unitary local government:
North Yorkshire
Kent
Staffordshire
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) of 27 June 2006, Official Report, column 298W, on local government, of which councils the senders of the representations concerned were members or officers. [82932]
Mr. Woolas: Pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) of 27 June 2006, our records show that representations were received from members of the following councils:
Ashfield
Bedford
Cambridge
Chester
Chiltern
Cornwall
Crawley
Derwentside
Durham County
Easington
Forest of Dean
Gloucestershire
Herefordshire
Lichfield Maidstone
Northumberland
Norwich
Shropshire
Tewkesbury
West Lancashire
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |