Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of using the Indices of Multiple Deprivation to prioritise investments through the UK Community Renewal Fund.
Answered by Eddie Hughes
To ensure the UK Community Renewal Fund funding reaches the most in need, we have identified 100 priority places based on an index of economic resilience across Great Britain which measures productivity, household income, unemployment, skills and population density. We are committed to transparency and a methodological note explaining how the 100 priority places were determined has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-community-renewal-fund-prospectus/uk-community-renewal-fund-prioritisation-of-places-methodology-note.
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) does not represent a ‘one size fits all’ solution to measuring economic need - not all of the variables it considers are relevant to the particular interventions we want to support through the UK Community Renewal Fund, and some of the variables it does not consider, such as productivity, are central to the policy goals of the Fund.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how the measure of household income used for the index of economic resilience for the UK Community Renewal Fund differs from the Income Deprivation Domain used in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation.
Answered by Eddie Hughes
To ensure the UK Community Renewal Fund funding reaches the most in need, we have identified 100 priority places based on an index of economic resilience across Great Britain which measures productivity, household income, unemployment, skills and population density. We are committed to transparency and a methodological note explaining how the 100 priority places were determined has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-community-renewal-fund-prospectus/uk-community-renewal-fund-prioritisation-of-places-methodology-note.
The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) does not represent a ‘one size fits all’ solution to measuring economic need - not all of the variables it considers are relevant to the particular interventions we want to support through the UK Community Renewal Fund, and some of the variables it does not consider, such as productivity, are central to the policy goals of the Fund.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, for what reasons the Government does not plan to publish immediately the methodology used to calculate the index employed to categorise places for the Levelling Up Fund and UK Community Renewal Fund.
Answered by Eddie Hughes
To ensure the UK Community Renewal Fund funding reaches the most in need, we have identified 100 priority places based on an index of economic resilience across Great Britain which measures productivity, household income, unemployment, skills and population density.
We are committed to transparency and a methodological note explaining how the 100 priority places were determined has been published: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-community-renewal-fund-prospectus/uk-community-renewal-fund-prioritisation-of-places-methodology-note.
As set out in the prospectus published at Budget, the index used for the Levelling Up Fund places areas into category one, two or three based on the local area’s need for economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity, and regeneration.
We have published the index and further details of the methodology used to calculate the index of places set out in the prospectus: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/levelling-up-fund-additional-documents.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
What recent estimate his Department has made of the number of buildings in England that have combustible non-ACM cladding.
Answered by Christopher Pincher
Local authorities and housing associations are conducting a data collection exercise as part of a programme to build a more complete picture of high-rise residential buildings and the variety of external wall systems in use. We will publish appropriate summary information from the data collection in our monthly Building Safety Programme data release when ready, which we expect to be in spring this year.
For buildings with unsafe ACM cladding, more buildings have come on site with remediation work within the last year than at any other time previously. Final figures for 2020 will be published on 21 January and we expect this to show that around 95 per cent of the buildings identified at the start of last year will have safety work completed or underway.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, how many people have been sleeping rough in (a) Edmonton constituency, (b) Enfield borough and (c) Greater London in each year since 2010.
Answered by Luke Hall
MHCLG’s latest official annual Rough Sleeping Snapshot Statistics published on 31 January 2019 provide information about the estimated number of people sleeping rough across Local authorities in England on a single night in Autumn from 2010 – 2018.
MHCLG does not collect any statistics on the number of people sleeping rough for (a) Edmonton, which is an area within the London borough of Enfield.
A breakdown of the annual rough sleeping statistics for every year from 2010 to 2018 can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/homelessness-statistics#rough-sleeping. Each publication includes a breakdown for Enfield and Greater London.
This Government is clear that no one should be without a roof over their head. That is why we have committed to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament and to enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act.
The Government has already taken important steps to prevent and reduce homelessness and rough sleeping. This includes implementing the most ambitious legislative reform in this area in decades, the Homelessness Reduction Act, which is transforming the culture of homelessness service delivery and actively prevents homelessness, meaning people will get the help they need quicker.
The Government has already committed over £1.2 billion to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over the spending review period to April 2020. In 2020/2021 we are providing a further £422 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. This marks a £54 million increase on what Government provided in 2019/20 and will go towards funding important programmes such as the newly combined Rapid Rehousing Pathway / Rough Sleeping Initiative and the Flexible Homelessness Support Grant.
Asked by: Kate Osamor (Labour (Co-op) - Edmonton and Winchmore Hill)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether he has made a comparative assessment of the potential effect on the viability of the leasehold sector of (a) regulating ground rents and (b) removing the financial value of ground rents; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
The Government wants to ensures that consumers only pay for services that they receive. We will introduce legislation so that, in the future, ground rents on newly established leases of houses and flats are set at a peppercorn. Costs incurred by landlords for overseeing and appointing a managing agent, or carrying out wider services, can be recovered through the service charge or a marginally higher sales price.
Prior to introducing any final legislation in Parliament, the Government will undertake a regulatory impact assessment. As part of this evidence-based procedure, we will assess the economic, social, and environmental effects of the policy. This will include an assessment of the economic implications of setting ground rents to a peppercorn in terms of viability, affordability, and supply.