Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 27 November 2018 to Question 192956, how many applicants were interviewed for the post of Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing; and how many of those applicants were social housing tenants.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
Three applicants have been interviewed for the post of Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing. Applicants were not asked as part of the application or interview process to confirm whether they were currently, or had ever been, social housing tenants.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, for what reason the recruitment panel for the new Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing did not include a tenant of social housing.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The membership of the Assessment Panel advising the Minister for Housing on appointable candidates met the requirements of the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments and included a senior departmental official and an independent member. The Governance Code does not require Panels to include a representative of the sector to which the public body relates.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which consultancies were involved in the recruitment of the new Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing; and how were those companies chosen to undertake that work.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
No consultancies were involved in the recruitment of the new Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, where the post of Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing was advertised.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
Along with all other public appointments, the role of Chair of the Regulator of the Social Housing was advertised on the Cabinet Office’s Government Public Appointment website. The post was also advertised on websites associated with the appointment of non-executive directors – specifically the Public Chairs Forum, NEDonBoard, Women on Boards and ConnectOnBoard – as well as the website of the Tenants and Residents of England Trust. The department, the Regulator of Social Housing and the Cabinet Office all published links to the advert on the Government Public Appointment website on their social media.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether, in the forthcoming social housing Green Paper, he will revise the definition of the serious detriment test used to determine compliance with the Homes Standard by the Regulator of Social Housing.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The Social Housing Green Paper announced that the Government would conduct a review of social housing regulation, looking at how it can support a new, fairer deal for social housing residents. The green paper said that “we want to ensure the serious detriment bar does not prevent the Regulator from taking a more proactive approach, and if it does, then we will consider removing it.” The Government will publish its response to the Green Paper in due course.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 November 2018 to Question 193589, on complaints about Clarion Housing Group, whether the Regulator of Social Housing is monitoring all complaints received and dealt with by that housing association or only those made to the Housing Ombudsman and directly to the regulator.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The Regulator of Social Housing continues to monitor the level of complaints and referrals from Clarion tenants made to the Regulator and to take any follow up engagement as appropriate. The Regulator also liaises closely with the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman will notify the Regulator if they receive any complaints that present evidence of potential systemic issues relating to any registered providers.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if the Government will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to allow rehoming organisations to rehome banned section 1 dogs.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The evidence I provided the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), as part of its review into controlling dangerous dogs, sets out what can be done with respect to the transfer of ownership of prohibited dogs. Defra has also had discussions with animal welfare organisations on the issue.
Evidence is available via the following link:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/1892/1892.pdf
In relation to dog attacks, the Metropolitan Police provided evidence to last year’s review on controlling dangerous dogs by the EFRA Committee which showed that pit bull terriers were disproportionately involved in dog attacks (section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 offences, completed cases).
The Metropolitan Police figures indicated that in 2015-16 pit bulls were responsible for 19.3% (92) of all reported dog attacks in Greater London out of a total of 468 cases. Pit bull terriers are considered to represent much less than 19.3% of the dog population and it is concerning that one type of dog, which does not have high levels of ownership, is disproportionately responsible for that many dog attacks in London. In addition, information collected by Defra shows the pit bull terrier to be disproportionately involved in fatal dog attacks, with seven fatalities out of 34 since 2005 caused by pit bull terriers.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the scientific evidence is for determining that the four breeds of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 pose more of a risk to the public then other dog breeds.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The evidence I provided the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), as part of its review into controlling dangerous dogs, sets out what can be done with respect to the transfer of ownership of prohibited dogs. Defra has also had discussions with animal welfare organisations on the issue.
Evidence is available via the following link:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/1892/1892.pdf
In relation to dog attacks, the Metropolitan Police provided evidence to last year’s review on controlling dangerous dogs by the EFRA Committee which showed that pit bull terriers were disproportionately involved in dog attacks (section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 offences, completed cases).
The Metropolitan Police figures indicated that in 2015-16 pit bulls were responsible for 19.3% (92) of all reported dog attacks in Greater London out of a total of 468 cases. Pit bull terriers are considered to represent much less than 19.3% of the dog population and it is concerning that one type of dog, which does not have high levels of ownership, is disproportionately responsible for that many dog attacks in London. In addition, information collected by Defra shows the pit bull terrier to be disproportionately involved in fatal dog attacks, with seven fatalities out of 34 since 2005 caused by pit bull terriers.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions he has had with animal welfare organisations on the rehoming of dogs banned under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Answered by David Rutley - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The evidence I provided the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA), as part of its review into controlling dangerous dogs, sets out what can be done with respect to the transfer of ownership of prohibited dogs. Defra has also had discussions with animal welfare organisations on the issue.
Evidence is available via the following link:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvfru/1892/1892.pdf
In relation to dog attacks, the Metropolitan Police provided evidence to last year’s review on controlling dangerous dogs by the EFRA Committee which showed that pit bull terriers were disproportionately involved in dog attacks (section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 offences, completed cases).
The Metropolitan Police figures indicated that in 2015-16 pit bulls were responsible for 19.3% (92) of all reported dog attacks in Greater London out of a total of 468 cases. Pit bull terriers are considered to represent much less than 19.3% of the dog population and it is concerning that one type of dog, which does not have high levels of ownership, is disproportionately responsible for that many dog attacks in London. In addition, information collected by Defra shows the pit bull terrier to be disproportionately involved in fatal dog attacks, with seven fatalities out of 34 since 2005 caused by pit bull terriers.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234648 on Housing Ombudsman Service, what effect the 35 per cent reduction in the subscription fee for the Housing Ombudsman Service has had on the length of time taken by that service to determine cases entering its formal remit.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
The Housing Ombudsman Service is funded by subscription fees from its members on a per housing unit per year basis. Unit costs were £1.47 in 2013-14, £1.02 in 2014-15 and £0.96 in 2015-16 and 2016-17. In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme approved by the Secretary of State, the Ombudsman sets the level of subscriptions by reference to budgeted cash requirements, including a prudent provision for relevant contingencies.
We are working with the Housing Ombudsman to reduce the time it takes to determine their cases. From 2017-18, the Department approved a fee increase to £1.25 for three years that is helping deliver reductions in average complaint determination times and business improvements. The proposed fee for 2019-20 was set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s draft Business Plan 2019/20 for consultation. Together with the Corporate plan 2019-22, it sets out a series of strategic priorities and measures of success for the coming year and includes its plans for subscription levels.