Andrew Stunell

Andrew Stunell in Parliament

On this page you find out all about the work I have done in Parliament, from the questions I have asked, and debates I have participated in, to the Early Day motions I have signed, and my voting record.

Please check back often as the page and its links are updated regularly with my latest contributions.

Westminster Links

• Early Day Motions I Have Signed
• Oral and Written Questions in the House of Commons (TheyWorkForYou.com)
• How I Voted in Parliament

• Feb 7, 2012:
  • Travellers: Evictions | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    The Department for Communities and Local Government does not collect this information.

  • Rents | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    holding answer 6 February 2012

    Data on social housing at constituency level is not held centrally. Information is provided to the Department by local authorities that own stock in their Housing Revenue Account subsidy returns. The Tenant Services Authority collect information on stock owned by private Registered Providers. Data from these sources on the stock and rent levels of social housing for the local authority areas in which the constituencies in the question are located are given in the following tables.

    Private registered provider stock (1, 2, ) 3- General needs
    	1 bedroom		2 bedroom		3 bedroom
    Local authority area	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)
    Barnsley	205	59.01	661	69.75	723	77.69
    Rotherham	691	58.81	1,145	67.39	701	75.16
    Sheffield	2,847	57.06	5,282	62.82	4,718	68.88
    Wakefield	5,659	57.37	12,516	63.71	12,530	69.43

    Private registered provider stock (1, 2, 3) - Supported housing/housing for older people
    	1 bedroom		2 bedroom		3 bedroom
    Local authority area	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)
    Barnsley	480	61.35	444	71.55	25	77.26
    Rotherham	651	60.83	398	68.06	9	81.45
    Sheffield	892	65.74	434	78.31	44	104.51
    Wakefield	1,936	59.39	993	69.22	17	75.80

    Local authority owned stock (4)
    	1 bedroom		2 bedroom		3 bedroom
    Local authority area	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)	Stock (units)	Rent (£ per week)
    Barnsley	4,129	52.71	6,451	58.80	8,085	63.11
    Sheffield	13,768	55.84	14,935	62.16	12,020	69.67
    Rotherham	4,906	56.78	6,689	62.20	8,963	68.31
    (1) Data on Private Registered Providers stock and rents represent the position as at 31 March 2011. More extensive data, including all property sizes and for all local authority areas in England, are available in the Guide to Local Rents part II and III, available from the TSA website: http://www.tenantservicesauthority.org/server/show/ConWebDoc.21432 (2) Rents presented do not include service charges. (3) These data exclude Private Registered Providers owning/managing fewer than 1,000 units/bedspaces, who are not required to report on their stock and rents by bedroom size. (4) Local authority owned stock is from the Housing Revenue Account subsidy base data form for 2012-13 and is as at 1 April 2011. Average actual local authority rents are taken from the 2011-12 Housing Revenue Account subsidy second advance claim form and are for 2011-12.

  • Housing Revenue Account | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    holding answer 6 February 2012

    We published the self-financing determinations, which contain this information, on 1 February. They are available on my Department's website at:

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/socialhousing/councilhousingselffinance/

  • Empty Property: Bury | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    As at October 2011, the metropolitan borough of Bury reported there were 3,201 empty dwellings in their area.

    Details of the number of vacant dwellings in all local authorities in England can be found on the DCLG's website in Table 615 that can be found through the following link:

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/stockincludingvacants/livetables/

    Data are not available at a constituency level.

• Feb 2, 2012:
  • Social Rented Housing | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    Through the new affordable homes programme and commitments from previous programmes, the Homes and Communities Agency currently expects to deliver 148 affordable homes in South Lakeland and 1,196 affordable homes in Cumbria between April 2011 and April 2015. These figures may change subject to signing remaining contracts with providers.

    Overall, with our total investment of £4.5 billion, we expect to provide up to 170,000 new affordable homes between 2011 and 2015, compared to 150,000 originally estimated.

  • Local Government: Property | Communities and Local Government | Written Answers

    The Department has not issued guidance to local authorities on the disposal of their vacant and disused properties as these are matters for local decision. But we of course encourage local authorities to promote regeneration and development when undertaking disposals.

    If a local authority wishes to dispose of land not held for housing purposes at less than best consideration for a scheme that will contribute to the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of an area, they may do so provided that they obtain the Secretary of State's consent. The Local Government Act 1972, General Disposal Consent 2003, contained in ODPM Circular 06/2003 enables local authorities to make such disposals, provided the undervalue does not exceed £2 million. If the proposed disposal was not covered by the general consent the local authority would have to apply to the Secretary of State for a specific disposal consent.

    Land held for housing purposes is subject to a separate consent regime. We have just finished seeking views on our proposal that local authorities should not require specific consent to dispose of vacant land or vacant properties at market value. The Government hope to publish their response to this consultation soon. We have not however issued guidance on local authorities' housing disposal strategies.

    We are funding the Asset Transfer Unit to promote best practice across England and provide advice and expertise to local authorities and communities on matters relating to asset transfer to community ownership and management. The Asset Transfer Unit also managed the recently completed Advancing Assets for Communities demonstration programme which has supported the development of local asset transfer strategies, policies and procedures aimed at communities taking over local authority assets, by providing tailored support to 92 local authority/community partnerships.

    The new community rights contained in the Localism Act will give communities the opportunities to influence development in their areas, bid to buy local assets that are important to them and bid to run local services differently and better. We are currently procuring for an expert delivery agent(s) to deliver a three-year programme to support communities that want to take up these rights. The Community Right to Reclaim Land also enables communities to get underused public property back in use.

• Jan 31, 2012:
  • Third Sector | Cabinet Office | Written Answers

    I have been asked to reply

    on behalf of the Department for Communities and Local Government.

    The Government are funding the Asset Transfer Unit to promote best practice across England and provide advice and expertise on matters relating to asset transfer to community ownership and management. The Unit also managed the recently completed Advancing Assets for Communities demonstration programme which has supported the development of local asset transfer strategies, policies and procedures aimed at communities taking over local authority assets, by providing tailored support to 92 local authority/community partnerships.

    The new community rights contained in the Localism Act will give communities the opportunities to influence development in their areas, bid to buy local assets that are important to them and bid to run local services differently and better. We are currently procuring for an expert delivery agent to deliver a three-year programme to support communities that want to take up these rights.

    In addition, through our work with 11 areas round the country on Capital and Assets Pathfinders, areas have shown how a local joined up approach to public sector assets helps strengthen the sustainability of the voluntary and community sector. This approach is supported across Government Departments and is now led by the sector.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    I am looking for a nod somewhere, but let us stick with this House.

    Amendment 71 states that the Secretary of State should have regard to the impact of any guidance on those of pensionable and working ages and those on benefits, particularly disability benefits. However, the Government have already made clear their intention to use the guidance to set out the importance of supporting work incentives through the design of local schemes and will consider how to ensure that local authorities are aware of their duties in respect of vulnerable groups. It is unclear whether amendment 71 would add to the Government's commitment in this regard.

    There are things that councils can begin to do now to help in their preparation-in understanding the circumstances of those in their area who currently claim support, in ensuring that elected members are aware of the decisions they need to take and in engaging with precepting authorities such as police and fire authorities. The Government have been clear that local authorities must ensure that they are on the front foot in preparing for this reform.

    In summary, I must recommend that the Committee reject the Opposition amendment on this occasion.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    Thank you, Ms Primarolo.

    As I was saying, IT suppliers are considering possible changes to existing software and they are working with local authorities. I recognise, of course, that local authorities and suppliers need as much information as possible as soon as possible. For that reason, we intend to publish draft regulations while the Bill is still before the House. We shall shortly make available a design tool to make it easier for local authorities to model their case load and the impacts of any changes to the framework, which should also clarify the extent of any IT changes that the design of their scheme might require.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    That is an important consideration for local authorities when they look at the speed and pace of change in the schemes they devise, but I have to say that practically everything that Labour Members have contributed to the debate has been on the basis of trying to preserve the existing scheme and associated costs. [Interruption.] I think that local authorities will probably take a cautious approach to changing their local schemes in the first year. I have to say, however, that we believe it is absolutely the case that those that wish to make a more radical change will be able to do so. I am encouraged to hear that IT suppliers are considering the possible changes to existing software and are working with local authorities to-[Interruption.]

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    If I can correct just one small point, the figure is £420 million for England, although the sum for the United Kingdom as a whole is larger. The hon. Lady is quite right that there is to be a reduction in the funding of council tax benefit support. That is not in dispute. My point-and the point the Government are making-is that local authorities have additional income streams open to them in later parts of the Bill. They also have the opportunity to tailor their schemes to suit their local circumstances, and if they choose to draw resources from other parts of their income streams, it is open to them to do that.

    Let me turn to amendments 49 and 56. It is unclear how a local authority could take into account the impact of claimants who were receiving council tax

    benefit before the introduction of a local scheme. For example, that would require a local authority to know, several years after the implementation of the reform, whether a person would have been entitled to claim council tax benefit under the old system and whether a change in circumstances meant that a person would no longer be eligible at all. The Bill already provides for local authorities to make transitional provision as they see fit, following changes to their schemes or the introduction of a new scheme. That seems a far better way of proceeding.

    Amendment 67 would require authorities to publish, as part of the scheme, the steps that they would take to ensure that people were informed of their entitlement and what assistance they would be offered. That is a sensible requirement, but paragraphs 2(1) and 2(5) of new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, inserted by schedule 4 to the Bill, already require the authority to set out the classes of persons who are entitled to a reduction, and the procedure for making an application. The provision that the amendment seeks to introduce is therefore already part of the legislation.

    Local authorities will want to publicise the scheme in a manner that ensures that those eligible for support claim what they need to in order to avoid going into arrears with their council tax. Points have been made about the cost of publicity and of introduction. The Government do not think it right to stipulate how local authorities should publicise the scheme; it is for them to decide, and a one-size-fits-all set of regulations would certainly place unnecessary requirements on them. Local authorities are best placed to decide how to publicise information about their own schemes.

    Amendment 68 would require a local authority to consult charities and organisations that provide advice on benefits or represent older people. However, local authorities already have a duty to consult other persons who are

    "likely to have an interest in the scheme".

    The Government's intention to protect pensioners from any reduction in support as a result of the reform, using the powers in the Bill, has already been made clear. It has been welcomed by the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and by the hon. Member for Warrington North, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition in today's debate. As the system for pensioners will be prescribed at national level, it is unclear what the benefit would be of prescribing further consultation at local level with groups representing pensioners. To prescribe the categories of organisations to be consulted would be restrictive and unnecessary. Many local authorities already have good consultative schemes and, in any case, people are not backward in coming forward to put their point across.

    Amendment 71 states that the Secretary of State should have regard to the impact of any guidance on those of pensionable and working ages, and those on benefits, particularly disability benefit. Again, however, the Government have already made clear their intention to use this guidance to set out the importance of supporting work incentives through the design of local schemes. We will consider how best to ensure that local authorities are aware of their duties in relation to vulnerable groups.

    It is unclear what the amendment would add to the clear commitment that the Government have already made.

    Taken together, amendments 57, 58, 59 and 60 would delay the start for localising council tax reductions. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) asked me why I thought that should be resisted. I believe it should be resisted because it is right to get the scheme in place quickly, to ensure that our programme of deficit reduction proceeds unhindered. It is an essential part of the Government's programme that that saving should be made. Any hon. Friends or other colleagues around the House who might wish to unravel that programme of deficit reduction need only look a little way across the channels-Irish or French-to see the consequences of so doing.

    The Government are clear that this reform needs to be implemented in 2013, to secure the agreed savings. The savings from the localisation of council tax benefit will make an important contribution to our deficit reduction plan. I have already made the point as clearly as I can that that deficit reduction plan is essential, and that the Bill provides powers for local authorities to create other income streams by tackling discounts and exemptions. There will be a possibility for them to do that, if they so choose.

    As for ensuring that the timetable is adhered to-the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) raised some issues in this regard-we are already working with local authorities and IT suppliers to identify how we can ensure that any new processes and systems are in place for April next year. We are committed to ensuring a steady flow of information to local government on our plans for delivery and the framework in which local authorities will operate. We will also look at what tools we can provide for local authorities to help them in their planning.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has partly misread the scheme. Paragraph 2(8) of schedule 4 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations in relation to the requirements of schemes, and he intends to use this power to require authorities to provide support for pensioners. The purpose of that provision is precisely to safeguard pensioners-a point on which, it would appear, there is cross-party support. It does not require the Secretary of State to approve schemes, and it is not a power to intervene in schemes. I think that I have made that point clear to the House, and if I have not, I repeat it now to make it so.

    Several rather whacky points have been made. The hon. Gentleman for Stockport North said-[Hon. Members: "Stockton North"] Sorry, I should know better. The hon. Member for Stockton North said that Labour had worked hard to close the gap between the rich and poor. Well, I do not know how hard it worked, but it certainly did not work, because the gap between the rich and the poor widened in that time. It did not narrow. He seemed extremely sceptical about whether it was possible for authorities such as Stockton to generate the additional income from discounts and exemptions to compensate them for the loss of council tax benefit grant.

    By my count, 18 local authorities have been drawn into the debate in one way or another-all of them by Opposition Members praying in aid councils that they believed would be at a disadvantage. Of those 18, 14 could in fact generate from the discounts and exemptions in their areas more money than they would lose from the loss of council tax benefit grant. Among those authorities is Stockton, which would have a surplus, if it extinguished all the discounts. The hon. Member for Stockton North referred to second homes, but an important part of the new flexibility-and part of the reason Stockton could have a surplus-relates to empty homes. Empty homes discounts provide another potential source of revenue.

    When one considers the generality of local authorities, one discovers that were all those discounts and exemptions to be extinguished-as I said in the previous debate, I am not arguing that they should be, but I want the House to understand that the flexibility is there-it would result in an additional income to local authorities in England of £420 million. By what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) called a fluke, that happens to be the same amount as the 10% reduction. The Government are not arguing that every local authority should simply extinguish those discounts and exemptions. We are simply pointing out that that provides for a significant flexibility, and I would be surprised if a large majority of councils did not choose to make that flexibility a part of the mix when devising a scheme.

    Local authorities need to plan carefully to ensure that they can meet demand through the funding that they make available to local schemes. As the hon. Member for Warrington North acknowledged, however, funding for the first two years of localised schemes is derived from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast for spending on council tax benefit, which reflects existing spending and, therefore, assumptions about underlying demographic changes, including growth in the pensioner population, and council tax increases. Thereafter, of course, the spending review process will provide further opportunities to consider cost pressures.

    Local authorities are already well accustomed to using these powers to determine in what circumstances council tax liability should be reduced, whether in individual cases or a class of cases. Local authorities are best placed to understand local needs, including those of low-income families. Paragraph 2(5) of proposed new schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which is inserted by schedule 4, already requires local authorities to set out the procedures for making an application for a reduction under the scheme.

    Amendments 56 and 70 would require local authorities to take into account the impact of their schemes on the living standards and work incentives of taxpayers, and on poverty levels when designing or revising their schemes. However, local authorities already have clearly defined responsibilities in relation to, and for their awareness of, the most vulnerable groups and individuals in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) made the point that there are statutory responsibilities on local government when drawing up such schemes, or indeed taking any of its functions forward. An important example is the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the promotion of equality between persons who share a protected characteristic, while the Child Poverty Act 2010 imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to, and to address, child poverty. She referred, quite properly, to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, both of which include a range of duties relating to the welfare needs of disabled people. She also referred to the Housing Act 1996, which gives local authorities a duty to prevent homelessness.

    Putting all that together, it is quite clear that every local authority is familiar with the need to ensure that any scheme it draws up complies with existing statutory guidelines. That is a continuous process that requires all the relevant decision makers to consider equality, disability and other issues, in forming policy and making decisions. We expect to continue with that sensible approach. There is no reason for unnecessary additional bureaucracy to be imposed on local authorities.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    No, I will not give way. I am just going to make a little progress.

    The hon. Lady said that we did not understand the leeches on the estate who collected the money on payday, but at the same time she seems to be in favour of channelling money through universal benefit, rather than localising it through a council tax reduction scheme. As the Select Committee Chairman rightly said, that is not only localist, but helpful in securing income for local authorities. The hon. Lady reinforced the point with her story of the leeches on the estate.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    Again, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have to say that the amendments we have discussed cut across the approach we set out for reforming support for the council tax and the whole localisation agenda. In the first debate, there seemed to be broad support for the view that the localisation part of the proposals was the right way forward, and I particularly welcomed the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Select Committee Chairman, who made it clear that that was his view. In the event, that turned out to be rather a contrast with the views of the hon. Member for Warrington North, who argued strongly against localisation. Then, rather puzzlingly, she said that some of us did not know what was going on in the real world. Perhaps that is not a puzzling thing to say, but I have to say that it is not the reality. With my wife, I brought up five children on family income supplement for two years, so I think I do know what it means when there is not enough money to buy things.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    No, I absolutely do not accept that. The average reduction if local authorities do not put any extra funding into the pot, from any source at all, is £2.64 per household per week. Every local authority-even those that do not have complete recompense of the one pot of money from the other-will still get significant inputs from the discount scheme, which local authorities can, if they choose, take into account. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) to withdraw his amendment, and I ask my hon. Friends to vote against it if he does not.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    Of course, it would be sensible to debate that matter when we come to the next group of amendments, and I look forward to it. I want to make it clear, however, that the Bill states that if a local authority has failed by 31 January next year to put in place a

    scheme, by default the existing scheme will continue, and that is what the Secretary of State has the power to ensure happens.

    Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out the new burdens assessment, but we are already committed to doing that. We must be clear that local authorities do the job that they have been set. They have the opportunities to raise money in alternative ways and to devise a scheme that is suitable to their circumstances. As for the administrative cost, we have already made it clear that we will be fully following the new burdens doctrine that this Government have set out. The Government will therefore be working with local authorities to assess the net impact of housing benefit centralisation and the localisation of support for council tax, including the transitional costs, which will be covered, where necessary, by the new burdens doctrine.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    In a moment. I realise that I failed to give way to the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I will do so in a moment.

    As the impact assessment makes clear, the reduction in the council tax benefit fund to local authorities in England is in the order of £420 million. Furthermore, as is also set out clearly in the impact assessment, the total of both the discounts and the other arrangements recoverable from the local tax changes also equal about £420 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East is right that there is not an exact match between the increase and the decrease, but it remains the case that three quarters of local authorities find themselves in a position whereby should they go down that route, they would have the funding.

    It is also open to local authorities, however, to look elsewhere and to put additional money into their council tax reduction funding, and of course they can change the basis on which they allocate that funding.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    I want to make some progress.

    It is essential that local authorities plan their schemes carefully and take account of possible changes in demand, as pointed out in the debate. As we have set out previously, we believe that those in-year pressures that hon. Members have mentioned can be managed by enabling any deficit in the collection fund to be shared between billing and major precepting authorities. Our scheme will do that. We are taking powers in the Bill to allow billing authorities to make arrangements with major precepting authorities

    and to vary the amount of precept to be paid to the major precepting authorities in-year to rectify any shortfall in council tax receipts. That could help to protect billing authorities, which could include small district councils-my hon. Friends mentioned that some district councils are indeed small organisations.

    Amendment 85 would require the Government to carry out a new burdens assessment on their allocation of grant, but the Government have already committed to consult on their proposals for distributing the grant. We must be clear that local authorities have to make choices, but they will be able to choose whether to pass on the reduction to council tax payers, to use the flexibility over council tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East mentioned, or to manage the reductions within their budgets.

    To the best of my reckoning, 12 local authorities come within the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate, and 10 of those local authorities are in a position whereby if they were to take advantage of the new flexibilities over second homes and empty homes, they would achieve an income increase exceeding the 10% reduction in their council tax benefit grant. I am not saying that it is right for local authorities simply to gobble up all that money, but I want to make the point-

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    It is a power to intervene but the Secretary of State does not propose to intervene on schemes. [Hon. Members: "Why's it in there then?] The Secretary of State always has reserve powers. Right hon. and hon. Members have asked what is the system of checking, of feedback and of amendment to the scheme, and that is always provided for in regulations. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.

  • Clause 8 - Council tax reduction schemes | Bills Presented - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Relocation to Bristol) Bill | Commons debates

    I give way to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).