This Government wants to see high quality housing built quickly and efficiently and is working closely with the housebuilding industry to encourage take up of innovative approaches, including advanced housing manufacturing construction.

The Government commissioned an industry-led Off-Site Housing Review report which was published in February 2013 and is available on the Construction Industry Council’s website at:

http://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2013-02-28-cic-presents-housing-minister-with-offsite-housing-review-report.

We are also encouraging the use of innovative construction techniques through our national planning guidance, published in March 2014, and our Affordable Homes 2015-18, Build to Rent and Housing Zones programmes.

In addition, Ministers have made a number of visits to housing developments recently, highlighting the quality and speed of construction benefits that advanced manufacturing can bring.

This Government wants to see high quality housing built quickly and efficiently and is working closely with the housebuilding industry to encourage take up of innovative approaches, including advanced housing manufacturing construction.

The Government commissioned an industry-led Off-Site Housing Review report which was published in February 2013 and is available on the Construction Industry Council’s website at:

http://cic.org.uk/news/article.php?s=2013-02-28-cic-presents-housing-minister-with-offsite-housing-review-report.

We are also encouraging the use of innovative construction techniques through our national planning guidance, published in March 2014, and our Affordable Homes 2015-18, Build to Rent and Housing Zones programmes.

In addition, Ministers have made a number of visits to housing developments recently, highlighting the quality and speed of construction benefits that advanced manufacturing can bring.

My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue, which has been well broadcast and covered in the media in the past couple of days. That is why we are carrying out an asbestos review going through all schools. We will publish it in due course, and action will have to be taken.

In May 2013, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) (War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber) heard appeals from a group of Nuclear Test Veterans against the decisions on their war pension applications.

Those appellants who were unsuccessful subsequently, appealed to the Upper-tier Tribunal (UTT). On 5 November 2014, the UTT remitted the case back to the FTT. The Ministry of Defence is preparing for this remitted hearing. While this process remains under way, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

The Property Data Survey was designed to give a relative view of condition need. As stated in the report, the Property Data Survey condition need we have calculated is not the cost of addressing the need in the estate but a relative weighting of the complexity of addressing different types of condition need. Calculating the total cost of addressing the need in the estate would involve taking into account other factors, such as asbestos and structural need, which are excluded from the survey. As such we do not hold an estimate of the total cost of repairs necessary to bring the school estate in England up to good condition.

The information collected by the Property Data Survey Programme focused on the condition of the buildings. The surveyors who visited schools as part of the programme did not record any information on the presence of asbestos. The condition need identified through the surveys does not reflect any asbestos that may be present.

The introduction of the sport premium means that we have given substantial funds directly to heads and teachers to spend in their school. The number of sports and the amount of time that pupils are spending on physical activity are going up each week. The Prime Minister has made a commitment to keep that funding until 2020. On a school visit last week, I saw that a fantastic co-ordinator was being employed to get all the young people moving.

The Property Data Survey does not provide an overall assessment of a block in the manner requested. The surveyors who visited schools made an assessment of the condition of individual construction types within each block, such as different types of roofs or walls for which we hold individual records, but did not attempt to rate blocks on a ‘good’ to ‘bad’ scale.

The Property Data Survey does not provide an overall assessment of schools in the manner requested. The surveyors who visited schools made an assessment of the condition of individual construction types within each block, such as different types of roofs or walls for which we hold individual records, but did not attempt to rate an entire school on a ‘good’ to ‘bad’ scale.

No, I do not regard that as satisfactory and I am happy to talk to the local commissioners. We have

ensured that there will be real-terms increases in mental health funding for 2015-16, and that should be regarded locally as a matter of urgency.

The aim of the second phase of the Priority School Building Programme (PSBP2) is to undertake rebuilding and refurbishment projects in schools with buildings in the very worst condition. PSBP2 is not an asbestos removal programme as, in most cases, the presence of asbestos can be safely managed with minimal investment. However, the Department for Education announced when the programme was launched that it would consider some situations where the presence of asbestos means the annual costs of safely managing it are excessive.

A total of 1299 schools submitted an expression of interest (EOI) for the second phase of the Priority School Building Programme. 307 schools indicated in their EOI that they had significant asbestos issues and provided relevant supporting documentation. These cases were assessed by independent technical advisers. This assessment considered whether the issues meant areas were already or likely to become inaccessible, whether the issues were classified as high risk or whether the presence of asbestos impacts on the operation or the maintenance of the school.

Eight schools met these criteria and in these cases the cost of removing or encapsulating asbestos was included in the calculation of the school’s condition need. Of these, six had sufficiently poor overall condition need to be included in the programme. Further information on the methodology used to prioritise schools for inclusion in PSBP2 is published online at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401689/PSBP2_Methodology.pdf

In all blocks where the condition need will be addressed, all asbestos will be dealt with appropriately, whether raised as a specific concern or not.

PSBP2 is intended to sit alongside - and not to replace or substitute - the responsibility that local authorities, governing bodies, trustees, dioceses and other bodies have for the maintenance of school buildings in their care. Given that PSBP2 is a six year programme (running between 2015 and 2021), it is essential that schools continue to address any concerns with regards to asbestos in an appropriate timescale and do not rely on PSBP2 to address immediate needs. All applicants have been made aware of this requirement.

Alongside announcing the schools to be included in PSBP2, the Government also announced school condition allocations for the next three years. We have reformed these allocations so that they reflect the condition of school buildings; this means that those schools in poor condition who missed out on PSBP2 can be confident that their needs will instead be reflected in the funding we make available to their local authority, trust or voluntary aided partnership for improving the condition of their schools.

My Department has provided £3.3 billion to local authorities in respect of local council tax support schemes in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the same amount will be provided in 2015-16.

For the first year of local council tax support only, the Government set out an indicative amount of £40,450,000 attributable to parish and town councils in England. Latest statistics show that 95 per cent of this indicative amount was passed down in 2013-14.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx

As schemes are designed and implemented by billing authorities, it is not for Government to calculate on an ongoing basis the appropriate level of funding parishes required. However I have previously written to the small number of authorities which in 2014-15 had no intention to pass on any of the funding to express concern. I also wrote to all billing authorities on 19 February 2015 reminding them of the Government’s clear expectation that they should pass down funding to eligible parishes in 2015-16 and have placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

Every sector of local government should be doing their bit to keep council tax down for hard-working people. Although the referendum principle does not apply to town and parish councils in 2015-16, we continue to keep this option under active consideration. The Government has given new rights for taxpayers to approve or veto excessive council tax rises set by principal local authorities. If necessary, we are prepared to extend this to town and parish councils in the future if there is evidence of unreasonable hikes being imposed on taxpayers without their consent.

My Department has provided £3.3 billion to local authorities in respect of local council tax support schemes in both 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the same amount will be provided in 2015-16.

For the first year of local council tax support only, the Government set out an indicative amount of £40,450,000 attributable to parish and town councils in England. Latest statistics show that 95 per cent of this indicative amount was passed down in 2013-14.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398765/Revised_RO1314_Supplementary_Tables_-_Final.xlsx

As schemes are designed and implemented by billing authorities, it is not for Government to calculate on an ongoing basis the appropriate level of funding parishes required. However I have previously written to the small number of authorities which in 2014-15 had no intention to pass on any of the funding to express concern. I also wrote to all billing authorities on 19 February 2015 reminding them of the Government’s clear expectation that they should pass down funding to eligible parishes in 2015-16 and have placed a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

Every sector of local government should be doing their bit to keep council tax down for hard-working people. Although the referendum principle does not apply to town and parish councils in 2015-16, we continue to keep this option under active consideration. The Government has given new rights for taxpayers to approve or veto excessive council tax rises set by principal local authorities. If necessary, we are prepared to extend this to town and parish councils in the future if there is evidence of unreasonable hikes being imposed on taxpayers without their consent.

A national summary of the condition of the school estate using data from the Property Data Survey Programme has been published on the Government’s website and can be found at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/property-data-survey-programme

The individual survey reports for schools have been shared directly with schools, local authorities and other relevant bodies responsible for the maintenance of school buildings.

No date has yet been set for the publication of the review report but we intend to publish it very shortly.

NHS England has advised that any request for a formal review of a decision made by the national Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) panel to remove a drug from the national CDF list can be made in line with NHS England’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Fund. Any request for a review of a panel decision must be made by the clinician or pharmaceutical industry representative that made the original application for inclusion on the list.

Requests must be lodged within 20 working days of the original decision being notified.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended a number of drugs for the treatment of advanced and metastatic breast cancer through its technology appraisals and a clinical guideline. These include:

- anthracyclines

- docetaxel

- vinorelbine

- capecitabine

- gemcitabine in combination with paclitaxel

- tamoxifen

- trastuzumab

Further information on each of these, together with the evidence base for NICE’s recommendations, can be found in NICE’s updated clinical guideline on advanced breast cancer (CG81) at:

www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg81

Since the new site licensing regime came into force on 1 April 2014, my Department has received one enquiry with anecdotal evidence of park home owners being required to pay a site licence fee and a site inspection fee.

We have made sure the process for charging fees is transparent by requiring local authorities to publish their policy on how they will set the fees. We have also published guidance for local authorities on matters that can and cannot be taken into account in setting fees.

If a home owner and site owner are in dispute about whether or what amount of the annual charge can be recovered through the pitch fee, either party can apply to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination.

We recognise that more work needs to be done to change the culture of the sector. We have therefore set up a Minister-led working group to identify evidence of poor practice in the sector and investigate how best to raise standards further.

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of park home owners. As she knows, we have been the first Government to engage with some of the challenging issues that they face. She will know, for example, that our reform of the warm home discount will make many park home owners eligible for it for the first time. That is action. As for the insulation programme that she mentioned, if she can wait until we publish our fuel poverty strategy, she will see that we are continuing to think about what can be done for park home owners.