Asked by: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will take steps to incentivise local authorities to promote social tenants' Right to Buy.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
Under the Housing Act 1985 and associated secondary legislation, social landlords have a duty to supply information to their tenants to make them aware of how they can exercise their Right to Buy.
However, it has been clear that some Labour councils have not enthusiastically done this, trying to keep their tenants in the dark. My Department has used a variety of media channels to raise awareness of the Right to Buy. We are open to representations on how we can further take forward the Right to Buy.
More broadly, Right to Buy sales help councils boost housing construction and reduce housing waiting lists. Since the Right to Buy was reinvigorated in England, £730 million in sales receipts are being re-invested in affordable house building; levering a further £1.7 billion of investment over the next 2 years. This means that in total, over £2.4 billion will be raised to invest in affordable house building as a result of the Right to Buy.
My Department recently announced a new £42 million fund in 2015-16 to help council tenants who are eligible for Right to Buy to purchase a home on the open market. This will prioritise several groups of council tenants, including older people and will give those older people an opportunity to buy a home which is more suitable for their needs, or closer to family or support networks.
Asked by: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will make an assessment of the appropriateness of leaseholder repair charges levied by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
My Department has recently received a number of letters from leaseholders complaining about how much they are being charged by Tower Hamlets Homes (an arms length management organisation for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets) in relation to major improvements and repair works to their homes. Examples have been given of service charges of around £35,000. Some of the complaints have also asserted that the commissioning of the works is flawed or even corrupt.
I have asked my officials for advice on whether we can make an assessment of the appropriateness of these charges.
In the meantime, we will be forwarding copies of the correspondence from leaseholders to Mazars, who have been appointed to provide an independent verification for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets of the decent homes funding grant claims.
Notwithstanding my Department’s review, I am disappointed with the aggressive and unsympathetic approach of the council, and this is yet another sign of how the actions of the Tower Hamlets administration have harmed the good reputation of local government.
Asked by: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what assessment he has made of the value for money to the public purse of the EU's INTERREG programme; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Kris Hopkins
The INTERREG programmes (also known as European Territorial Co-operation) have been a waste of UK taxpayers’ money.
Under the last Administration, funds were wasted on vanity projects for artificial pan-national Euro regions, such as the “Transmanche”. Pointless expenditure included a series of Cross-Channel Cycle Lanes, films on European fairy tales, a Cross-Channel Circus, a human treadmill, transnational dance troupes and an Atlas which renamed the English Channel as “Le Pond”.
It is worth noting that, as with all Structural Funds, such European funding is merely recycled from the UK taxpayer, given the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. There is no ‘free’ money from the European Union. Indeed, the UK is a net loser given the massive amount spent on bureaucracy, complex auditing and stupid projects that would never have been funded by the UK Government directly. There is a strong case for repatriating Structural Funds, cutting out the middle man of the European Commission, and freeing up money to directly support regeneration and economic development across the United Kingdom.
In as far as we are stuck with the current programme, we have sought to ensure that the 2014-20 schemes focus on jobs and growth, as well as tackling genuine maritime-related issues such as coastal flooding. Looking ahead, there is a strong case to consider for the United Kingdom giving notice in the next Parliament and withdraw from the programme completely.
Asked by: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether front and side extensions are subject to the same neighbouring amenity rules as rear extensions under the General Permitted Development Order 2013.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
The provisions in the 2013 Order only apply to rear extensions. The details can be found at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/article/4./made
My Department’s guide on permitted development rights for householders was last updated in April 2014 and can be found at:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf
Asked by: Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 3 March 2014, Official Report, column 694W, on polling stations, what assessment he has made of the effect of foreign language translation by local authorities on integration of non-English speakers into their communities.
Answered by Brandon Lewis
In March 2013, my Department published new guidance for local authorities outlining how councils should stop translating into foreign languages. As outlined in the Written Ministerial Statement of 12 March 2013, Official Report, Column 5WS, such translation weakens integration; discourages communities from learning English; undermines rather than strengthens equality goals; harms community relations; and is an expensive waste of taxpayers' money at a time when councils need to be making sensible savings. It is disappointing that councils like Tower Hamlets have disregarded that guidance, and reflects broader issues with the dysfunctional governance and divisive practices of the council.
I would add that in light of previous instances of electoral fraud, including impersonation in polling stations, postal voting irregularities and allegations of improper influence, Ministers in this Department have concerns about the practice of allowing foreign language translators/interpreters inside polling stations. The privacy of the ballot must be protected and voters inside a polling station should not be subject to any pressure or influence to vote in a particular way. In that context, the integrity of the ballot box and of the local democratic process requires independent and transparent scrutiny in polling stations by polling agents, council staff, the police and, indeed, passing members of the public who are also voting. This is undermined by polling room administration being conducted in foreign languages.