| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2009 : Column 629W—continued
Community Infrastructure Levy
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what estimate her Department has made of the receipts (a) each of her Department's executive agencies and (b) each regional development agency will receive from community infrastructure levy; [251801]
(2) who the charging authorities for the community infrastructure levy will be; [251802]
(3) what plans she has to produce an updated impact assessment for community infrastructure levy; [251808]
(4) what proposals her Department has for the (a) level and (b) rates of community infrastructure levy. [251828]
Mr. Iain Wright: Section 206 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out which bodies will be charging authorities for the Community Infrastructure Levy. As part of the consultation on draft CIL regulations, the Government will consult on the use of the section 206(4). Executive agencies and regional development agencies cannot be charging authorities. However such bodies could receive CIL revenue from CIL charging authorities in order to provide infrastructure identified as necessary, through the development plan process, to support development. No estimate has been made of the level of CIL revenue that these specific bodies would receive as this will depend on the infrastructure planning and local decisions about funding priorities made by each CIL charging authority.
The Planning Act together with the CIL regulations will set the framework governing how charging authorities will determine the rate of CIL in their area. The level of CIL will be set locally by each charging authority should they decide to establish a CIL.
Section 211(2) of the Act requires charging authorities to have regard to actual and expected costs of infrastructure; the economic viability of development and other actual and expected sources of funding for infrastructure in setting the rate of CIL.
An updated impact assessment will be produced alongside the CIL regulations which will not come into force before October 2009.
Community Relations
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what progress the Equality and Human Rights Commission has made in convening forums with employers’ networks, the CBI and the TUC to formulate action plans on cohesion. [245545]
Mr. Khan: I understand that the Commission will be developing further links with the private sector and the trade unions as part of its broader stakeholder engagement work in support of its Strategic Plan in 2009. This will include work on promoting good relations and community cohesion.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance has her Department has provided on whether reports produced by local authorities under their new tension monitoring duties will qualify for an exemption from the provisions of (a) the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and (b) the Data Protection Act 1998. [251810]
Mr. Khan: Guidance for Local Authorities on Community Cohesion Contingency Planning and Tension Monitoring published on 6 May 2008, sets a framework which local authorities can use to monitor local issues that may lead to local community tensions, and does not provide advice on whether reports produced by local authorities are exempt from FOI Act or the Data Protection Act. Tension monitoring for local authorities is not mandatory, and all contributors to the tension monitoring process are required to adhere to the principles of data collection set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Each organisation that makes a contribution to tension monitoring should have local information sharing protocols in place.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance her Department has issued to local authorities on tension monitoring and the activities of political parties. [251811]
Mr. Khan: Guidance for Local Authorities on Community Cohesion Contingency Planning and Tension Monitoring published on 6 May 2008, sets a framework which local authorities can use to monitor local issues that may lead to local community tensions and to put plans into operation if a problem is identified. It is up to each local authority to determine the scope of their tension monitoring and contingency planning.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether Ministers in her Department plan to organise seminars on issues identified in the National Community Forum's report on Sources of resentment and perceptions of ethnic minorities among poor white people in England. [251901]
Mr. Khan: I plan to hold a seminar to discuss the report's findings later this year.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what expenditure her Department incurred on the (a) research for and (b) production of the National Community Forum report, Sources of resentment and perceptions of ethnic minorities among poor white people in England. [251972]
Mr. Khan: The National Community Forum is funded by Communities and Local Government and has advised that the cost of this research was £10,500.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the answer of 14 July 2008, Official Report, column 46W, on local authorities: community relations, what guidance her Department has published on tension monitoring in relation to the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [252485]
Mr. Khan: ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on Community Cohesion Contingency Planning and Tension Monitoring’, published on 6 May 2008, sets a framework which local authorities can use to monitor local issues that may lead to local community tensions. We are not aware of any local authorities using the powers available under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to conduct their tension monitoring. This Act is therefore not covered in our guidance.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the answer of 14 July 2008, Official Report, column 46W, on local authorities: community relations, what further guidance her Department has provided to local authorities on tension monitoring. [252487]
Mr. Khan: The Department does not plan to issue further guidance.
Departmental Correspondence
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what her Department's average response time to a letter received from (a) an hon. Member and (b) a member of the public was in each of the last three years. [251437]
Mr. Khan: Communities and Local Government (CLG) will not be able to provide the information requested regarding correspondence from a hon. Member without bearing disproportionate cost.
CLG are able to inform that the Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the performance of Departments in replying to Members correspondence. The report for 2007 was published on 20 March 2008, Official Report, columns 71-74WS. Information for 2008 is currently being collated and will be published as soon as it is ready. Reports for earlier years are available in the Library of the House.
As for correspondence from members of the public, this information could not be provided within disproportionate costs limits but CLG aim to respond to all written correspondence within 15 working days.
Departmental Expenditure Limit
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the Written Ministerial Statement of 25 November 2008, Official Report, columns 52-7WS, on the departmental expenditure limit (2008-09), how much the litigation costs in relation to the transfer of £4.3 million to Firebuy were; and what the litigation concerned. [252164]
Mr. Khan: The transfer of £4.3 million to the Firebuy line in the Department’s Winter Supplementary Estimates included provision of £2.4 million for defending litigation brought against Firebuy over the procurement of the Integrated Clothing Project.
Departmental ICT
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 17 December 2008, Official Report, column 786W, on departmental ICT, what her most recent estimate of the (a) cost and (b) completion date of each of the projects listed is; and if she will make a statement. [251243]
Mr. Khan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 5 November 2008, Official Report, column 545-46W.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which ICT projects her Department and its predecessors initiated and abandoned before completion in each year since 1997; what costs were incurred in each project; who the contractors for each were; on what date each was (a) commenced and (b) abandoned; and if she will make a statement. [251390]
Mr. Khan: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 1 September 2008, Official Report, column 1420W. The Department has nothing further to report by way of abandoned ICT projects since.
Departmental Public Relations
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for what reasons her Department engaged (a) Band and Brown, (b) Connect PR and (c) Blue Rubicon PR in 2008 to undertake public relations work; and for what reasons such work was not undertaken by her Department. [251779]
Mr. Khan: I can confirm that Band and Brown were engaged to provide PR support for publicity on home information packs, Connect PR were engaged to provide PR support for publicity on regeneration and sustainable communities policy, including the sustainable communities conference, and Blue Rubicon PR were engaged to provide PR support for publicity on the introduction of the energy performance in buildings directive.
The above agencies were engaged to support and extend the work conducted by the Department's Press Office.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much her Department’s executive agencies spent on services procured from each of the external public relations and marketing companies included in the Central Office of Information’s Public Relations Framework in the last 36 months. [251818]
Mr. Khan: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which (a) public affairs (i) companies and (ii) consultants and (b) external public relations firms have been commissioned by each of her Department’s advisory non-departmental public bodies in the last 24 months; and at what cost. [251822]
Mr. Khan: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Departmental Temporary Staff
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was spent by her Department on (a) agency and (b) temporary staff in each financial year since 2005-06. [251301]
Mr. Khan: The Department has spent the following amounts on agency staff in each of the last four years.
| Amount spent (£) | |
Departmental Training
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much her Department spent on digital media training courses provided by the Internet Advertising Bureau in 2008; how many such training sessions were held in 2008; and how many staff in her Department attended at least one such training course. [252261]
Mr. Khan: The Department has not commissioned any digital media training courses through the Internet Advertising Bureau in 2008.
Deprivation Indicators
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the geographical barriers score of each local authority in the Indices of Deprivation for (a) 2004 and (b) 2007 was, ranked from highest to lowest in each year. [251734]
Mr. Khan: Geographical barriers is a sub-domain of the Indices of Deprivation which is published at Lower Super Output Area level (geographical units with an average of 1,500 population).
The Government do not produce a score for this at local authority level.
I have placed a table of the LSOA score and rank for this sub domain for 2004 and 2007 in the Library. The table also shows which local authority each LSOA is within, and shows all of England's 32,482 LSOAs.
LSOAs with the highest score, face the greatest geographical barriers (The LSOA with a rank of one is the most deprived on this sub domain, and 32,482 the least deprived).
The geographical barriers sub-domain is calculated from data on road distance to: GP premises; supermarket or convenience store; primary school; and post office.
Derelict Land
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent assessment she has made of levels of brownfield development in (a) England, (b) the South East, (c) Hampshire and (d) Romsey constituency. [251037]
Mr. Iain Wright: Information on development on previously developed or brownfield land is taken from the Land Use Change Statistics.
(a) 58 per cent. of the land changing to a developed use in England was previously developed.
(b) 62 per cent. of the land changing to a developed use in the South-East was previously developed.
(c) 68 per cent. of the land changing to a developed use in Hampshire was previously developed.
(d) 79 per cent. of the land changing to a developed use in the constituency of Romsey was previously developed.
“Brownfield” development has been interpreted as all development on previously developed land, not just residential development. Information on residential development can be found on the CLG website at:
Domestic Waste
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether her Department issues (a) guidance and (b) instructions to local authorities on the monitoring of household waste for items relevant to community cohesion monitoring exercises. [252302]
Mr. Khan: ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on Community Cohesion Contingency Planning and Tension Monitoring’, published on 6 May 2008, sets a framework which local authorities can use to monitor local issues that may lead to local community tensions and to put plans into operation if a problem is identified. This guidance does not make specific mention of the monitoring of household waste. It is up to each local authority to determine the scope of their tension monitoring and contingency planning. All contributors to the tension monitoring process are required to adhere to the principles of data collection set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Each organisation that makes a contribution to tension monitoring should have local information sharing protocols in place.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |