Heidi Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding his Department plans to provide to Lewisham Homes for the purposes of meeting the Decent Homes standard in respect of its housing stock. 
Andrew Stunell: The Homes and Communities Agency has made a provisional indicative capital funding offer of £153.8 million to Lewisham Homes to deliver a Decent Homes investment programme. Future funding allocations for the Decent Homes programme will be decided in the context of the spending review.
Eric Ollerenshaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many people there were seeking properties of each size on council house waiting lists in each local authority area in each of the last five years. [R] 
Andrew Stunell: Information on social housing waiting lists is collected in terms of the number of households (rather than people). Information on the bedroom size requirement of households on social housing waiting lists, as at 1 April each year, is collected on the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) from each local authority in England.
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much his Department and its predecessors spent on (a) reimbursement of staff expenses and (b) the 10 largest staff expense reimbursement claims in each year since 1997. 
Robert Neill: Expenditure on reimbursement of staff expenses from 2002-03 is set out in the following table. Information for previous years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Reimbursement of staff expenses (£)|
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many chairs his Department and its predecessors purchased in each year since 1997; how much was spent in each such year; and what the five most expensive chairs purchased in each such year were. 
Robert Neill: The number of chairs purchased by Communities and Local Government, their cost and details of the five most expensive chairs purchased each year since its inception in 2006 are laid out in the two tables.
|Chairs purchased by CLG|
|Number purchased||Cost (£000)|
|Five most expensive purchased|
With the exception of the Think chairs purchased in 2006 and the Lola and Hitch Mylius chairs purchased in 2009, the remainder of the most expensive chairs purchased each year, including all chairs purchased in 2010, are orthopaedic chairs that have been tailored to meet the specific outcomes of display screen assessments and workstation assessments.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which IT contracts awarded by his Department in each of the last five years have been abandoned; and what the monetary value of each such contract was. 
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the cost was of pension contributions incurred by (a) his Department and (b) each (i) non-departmental public body and (ii) executive agency for which he is responsible in (A) Scotland, (B) Wales, (C) each region of England and (D) Northern Ireland in each of the last three financial years; and what the planned expenditure is for 2010-11. 
|Financial year||Cost (£ million)|
All the above figures relate to main Department in England and we are not able to break these figures down into the Government office regions. Information on the Department's NDPBs and executive agencies is not held centrally.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the monetary value was of (a) public opinion research and (b) public relations contracts awarded by his Department in each (i) nation and (ii) region of the UK in each of the last five years. 
Robert Neill: For public opinion research and public relations activity the Department's Communication Directorate primarily uses the contracts operated by the Central Office of Information (COI). Information provided by the COI detailing the monetary value of (a) opinion research and (b) public relations work commissioned by the Department under these contracts in each of the last five years has been deposited in the Library of the House. A breakdown by nation, Government office region and London could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many empty dwelling management orders have been issued in each local authority area in each year since 2006. 
|Authority||Number of EDMOs|
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he has set a timetable for the closure of the Government office in each region; whether he expects existing employees will be made redundant under the present compensation terms; and if he will make a statement. 
Greg Clark: On 22 July the Secretary of State announced the Government's intention in principle to abolish the remaining Government offices following consideration of consequential issues. I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made to the House on 22 July 2010, Official Report, columns 27-28WS, on Regional Government in which we state the final decisions on the future of the Government office network, including arrangements for closure and for the redeployment or release of staff, will be made at the end of the spending review in the autumn.
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether employees of the Government offices for the regions fall within the definition of surplus staff contained in the Cabinet Office's April 2008 publication Efficiency and Relocation Support Programme: Protocol for Handling Surplus Staff Situations; and if he will make a statement. 
Greg Clark: The announcement made on 22 July regarding the remaining Government offices made clear that final decisions will be made at the end of the spending review. Until that time Government office staff are not regarded as being surplus.
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what cost/benefit analysis he carried out prior to his decision on the future of the Government offices for the regions. 
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what consultation he undertook with trades unions on his decision on the future of the Government offices for the regions; and if he will make a statement. 
Greg Clark: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government met Government office network trade union representatives prior to making his announcement on 22 July. A final decision on the future of the network will be made at the end of the spending review and discussions with Government office network trade union representatives continue as part of the spending review process.
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which (1) bodies at what structural (a) level and (b) location will be responsible for economic regional development fund activity following the proposed abolition of regional government offices; 
(2) functions hitherto undertaken by Government offices (a) will be undertaken by (i) Government departments and (ii) local enterprise partnerships and (b) have yet to be assigned to another body following the abolition of the Government offices for the regions. 
Greg Clark: On 22 July 2010 the Government announced their intention in principle to abolish the remaining Government offices subject to consideration of consequential issues including which Government office functions need to continue. The spending review process is being used to test which activities should continue, and to decide the most cost-effective way of doing this. The final decisions on the future of the Government office network, including the transfer of on-going functions, will be announced at the end of the spending review in the autumn.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many redundancies he expects will take place (a) in the South West and (b) in England as a result of his decision to close the Government office for the south west; and what the projected cost savings are arising from the closure of the other Government offices for the regions in the first year after closure. 
I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement made to the House on 22 July 2010, Official Report, columns 27-28WS, on Regional Government in which we state the final decisions on the future of the Government office network, including
arrangements for the redeployment or release of Government office staff, will be made at the end of the spending review in the autumn.
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps he has taken to implement his policy on not telling communities how or where to build; and what effect the implementation of this policy will have on developments on green belt land. 
Robert Neill: In the coalition agreement we undertook to maintain the green belt. One major step has already been taken-on 6 July we revoked all regional strategies, thus removing regional housing targets and the pressure they created to release green belt land for development. That means the protection of green belts is in the hands of local communities. Local planning authorities should have regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, "Green Belts", which establishes a presumption against inappropriate development on green belt land.
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much Kickstart funding was (a) allocated and (b) disbursed to each local authority for building projects in 2009-10. 
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what recent representations he has received from Hyndburn borough council on reductions in levels of public expenditure. 
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the average percentage change in local authority budgets in 2012-13 consequent upon the removal of area-based grant and changes to revenue support grant; and what estimate he has made of the percentage budget change in these circumstances for each top-tier local authority. 
Robert Neill: Decisions on local authority budgets is a matter for individual local authorities. Spending plans for local government for 2011-12 onwards are being considered in the context of the spending review which will be announced on 20 October 2010.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much money (a) in total and (b) derived from the sale of council houses each local authority invested in financial markets in the most recent period for which figures are available. 
Robert Neill: Local authorities in England had estimated total investments in financial markets of £20.004 million as at 31 March 2010. The data are as reported by local authorities to Communities and Local Government on the annual capital payments and receipts (CPR4) forms. I have today placed in the Library of the House a table giving details of the investments for each local authority.
It is not possible to say how much of these investments are derived from the sale of council houses as local authority investments cannot be attributed to particular sources from which they derive funds.
Robert Neill: We are already taking steps to reduce the regulatory burden by abolishing comprehensive area assessment and disbanding the Audit Commission. We are also reducing the unnecessary burden of secondary legislation and other forms of regulation to remove needless bureaucracy. We have already announced various changes including consolidation of building regulations and consolidation of three sets of tree protection regulations together with streamlining of this system. And, the forthcoming Localism Bill will contain additional measures that will further free local government from central and regional control so that they can ensure services are delivered according to local needs.
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much has been spent by each local authority on enforcement of the law relating to the private rented sector in each year since 2004. 
Grant Shapps: This information is not held centrally. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can, in many cases, recover all or part of the costs associated with enforcement action against a private landlord.
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many staff employed by (a) regional development agencies and (b) local government leaders' forums have been involved in preparing regional strategies in each region outside London in each of the last five years. 
Edward Miliband: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effects of the abolition of regional spatial strategies on the amount of renewable energy produced at a local level. 
Greg Clark: The regional strategies were ineffective and flawed; just as with house building, imposing top-down targets does not increase the level of sustainable development. This Government want to see real increases in renewable energy produced at the local level. We are committed to meeting the challenge of climate change and securing a low carbon future as shown in our Annual Energy Statement. As laid out in the DECC press release of 9 August 2010, the new Government have overturned the law banning councils from selling their surplus renewable energy, and will be introducing new incentives to spur local power generation from renewables, to bring in long-term income to benefit local areas and to secure local acceptance for low carbon energy projects. This is a fundamental different approach from the last Government.
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding his Department has allocated for the construction of social housing in (a) London, (b) the London borough of Lambeth and (c) Streatham constituency in 2010-11. 
Andrew Stunell: The following table shows allocation provided in 2010-11 through the Homes and Communities Agency's National Affordable Housing Programme, Local Authority New Build and Kickstart programmes for the provision of affordable housing. The table shows the split of allocation between social rent and low cost home ownership, so far is as follows:
HCA does not collate information down to areas within local authorities. Allocation of funding from the NAHP is done on a bids basis so the actual allocation for the year is unknown at present. The figures in the table are to the end of August for the programme.
Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he plans to review the powers and responsibilities of local authorities in respect of Gypsies and Travellers. 
Andrew Stunell: The Government will bring into force section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 which includes local authority traveller sites in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Residents of authorised local authority traveller sites will gain improved protection against eviction which means they will be treated in the same way as those who live on other residential mobile home sites.
The Government intend, subject to necessary impact assessments, to revoke Planning Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites and replace it with a short policy statement and light touch guidance.
The Government are working on proposals to strengthen the powers that local authorities have to enforce against breaches of planning control and to limit the opportunities for retrospective planning applications in relation to any form of unauthorised development.
Nicky Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether airports required to publish master plans will be required to continue to do so following the abolition of local development frameworks. 
Mrs Villiers: On 6 July 2010, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made a statement informing Parliament that regional strategies (outside London) had been revoked with immediate effect, returning decision-making powers on housing and planning to local councils. Local plans and development frameworks have not been abolished.
The 2003 "The Future of Air Transport" White Paper, published by the previous Government, recommended that the operators of certain airports maintain a master plan document detailing their airport development proposals, to inform the content of local development frameworks. This recommendation did not constitute a mandatory requirement for airports to publish master plans.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether passive millimetre wave and X-ray technology body scanners have been used at any UK (a) airport, (b) port, (c) railway station and (d) underground station in the last 10 years. 
Mrs Villiers: Passive millimetre wave technology is not in use in the UK. Security scanners using backscatter x-ray and active millimetre wave technology are in use in London Heathrow, London Gatwick and Manchester airports for transport security purposes.
Security scanners are not currently deployed operationally at any port, railway station or underground station for transport security purposes. The Department for Transport has, however, carried out trials of security scanners at Paddington railway station in the past.
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of passive millimetre wave and X-ray technology body scanners; and whether he plans to introduce them at UK airports. 
The effectiveness of security scanners is assessed through detailed laboratory testing carried out by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch on behalf of the Department for Transport. Passive millimetre wave security scanners have been tested but were not found to be as effective as other technologies.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance his Department issues on the frequency and nature of tyre condition checks for vehicles owned by Government departments and their agencies and non-departmental public bodies; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that such guidance is observed. 
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what minimum requirements for tread depth his Department sets for vehicles owned by Government departments, their agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that these requirements are observed. 
Mike Penning: Minimum requirements for tread depth are set out in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, and vary according to type of vehicle. For cars, the minimum depth is 1.6 mm. The Department for Transport does not set different standards specifically for Government owned vehicles.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to increase the (a) frequency and (b) quality of tyre condition checks for vehicles owned by Government Departments and their agencies and non-departmental public bodies. 
Mrs Villiers: The land occupied by the Leamside Line is owned by Network Rail which has no plans to dispose of it. The Department for Transport has the opportunity to object to any disposal of this nature proposed by Network Rail, should this ever arise, as part of a process regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG13) gives guidance on the safeguarding of transport routes and local authorities have planning powers to prevent disused railway lines from being used for development.
Mrs Villiers: The Department for Transport has not carried out any studies on the case for reopening the Leamside Line. However a study was carried out by Tyne and Wear PTE (Nexus) in 2008 which looked at a range of options for possible use of the line and estimated the costs of reopening and likely value for money.
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the South East Airports Task Force will consider the scope for reducing the number of transfer passengers using airports in the South East. 
Mrs Villiers: Heathrow is the UK's only major hub airport and therefore the only UK airport handling large numbers of transfer passengers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the importance of securing Heathrow's hub status within the constraints of the existing runways. The South East Airports Taskforce is exploring measures to help make the most of existing infrastructure and improve conditions for all users at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. I intend to publish the taskforce's terms of reference shortly.
Mr Philip Hammond: The Government's vision is of a truly national high speed rail network linking the UK's major conurbations. No final decisions on the shape or phasing of the network will be taken until full public consultation has taken place. Decisions on operational specification-including service patterns-will not be taken until a later stage in the project's life cycle.
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 22 June 2010, Official Report, column 109W, on biofuels: EU action, if he will make the acceleration of the rate of annual increases of the UK renewable transport fuel obligations conditional on mandatory sustainability criteria. 
Norman Baker: The Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) contain mandatory sustainability criteria for biofuels. These include that biofuels must deliver a GHG saving of at least 35%, and must not be sourced from areas of high biodiversity, or from high carbon soils (such as rainforests or wetlands).
All biofuels will have to meet mandatory sustainability criteria in order to be counted towards meeting the targets in the RED and FQD, subject to certain exceptions. We will be consulting soon on proposals to implement the RED and FQD, including on how to ensure biofuels used in the UK meet mandatory sustainability criteria set out in the directives.
Future decisions on obligation levels under the renewable transport fuel obligation will be made in the light of available information on the impacts of higher targets on sustainability, indirect land use change and how best to deploy biomass resources across different sectors.
Mike Penning: The information requested cannot be identified separately. Quad bikes do not fall into any of the main vehicle categories recorded by the police in road accidents. Those involved in reported personal injury accidents are recorded as part of the 'other motor vehicle' category along with vehicles such as ambulances, fire engines, and motorised wheel chairs.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for East Yorkshire of 20 July 2010, Official Report, column 188W, on speed limits: cameras, how many responses he has received to his letter dated 24 June 2010 on the Government's position on speed cameras; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each response. 
Mike Penning: I have received six responses to my letter dated 24 June in which I set out the Government's position regarding speed cameras. To comply with data protection requirements these have been summarised. The summary has been placed in the Libraries of the House.
Mike Penning: None. EU Regulation No. 1222/2009 on the labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters was adopted on 25 November 2009. It will come into effect from 1 November 2012 for all tyres produced from 1 July 2012. Coalition Ministers have not had any discussions with counterparts in EU member states on this regulation.
Mike Penning: No. Large passenger-carrying vehicles such as school buses must have a tread depth of at least 1 mm across three-quarters of the breadth of the tread and in a continuous band around the entire circumference.
This is checked at the annual roadworthiness test and is also enforced at the roadside by the police and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. The operator of the service has a responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is always roadworthy.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the relationship between the rolling resistance of tyres and levels of fuel consumption. 
Mike Penning: The Department for Transport has not commissioned any research on the relationship between tyre rolling resistance and fuel economy. However, in the process of producing an Impact Assessment on EU Regulation 661/2008, which sets limits on the maximum permissible rolling resistance of tyres, the Department drew on research conducted by other organisations. This included a joint study by the organisations TNO Science and Industry, the Laboratory of Applied Thermodynamics and the Institute of European Environmental Policy entitled "Review and analysis of the reduction potential and costs of technological and other measures to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars" and the "Tyre/road noise reference book" by Informex.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to improve the provision of information to businesses about the relationship between the rolling resistance of tyres and levels of fuel consumption. 
Mike Penning: The EU Tyre Labelling Regulation 1222/2009 will require tyre suppliers to provide consumers with information on the rolling resistance, wet grip and noise performance of all tyres from November 2012. The Department for Transport will work with industry to ensure that private and business consumers are educated to enable them to understand this information and the fuel economy benefits of low rolling resistance tyres.
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions he has held meetings with representatives of road safety organisations since his appointment; and whether he discussed enforcement of the tyre condition law for motor vehicles on any such occasion. 
Mike Penning: Ministers regularly meet with a wide range of road safety organisations and a broad range of road safety issues are discussed at these meetings. However, the specific subject of enforcing tyre condition regulations has not been discussed in detail.
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether (a) his Department, (b) the Government Car and Dispatch Agency and (c) other
agencies and non-departmental public bodies take into account rolling resistance as a performance criterion when purchasing tyres; 
(2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that rolling resistance is taken into account by Government Departments and their agencies and non-departmental public bodies as a performance criterion when purchasing tyres. 
Mike Penning: Current Government Buying Standards published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair's website provide Government Departments and agencies with advice on procurement and maintenance of vehicles. This already includes guidance encouraging the use of lower rolling resistance tyres. The increased availability of objective information on tyre rolling resistance, as required by EU Regulation 1222/2009, will help support these decisions. Purchasing decisions are ultimately a matter for individual Departments and agencies to take bearing in mind their own budgets and the benefits of different technologies within their specific operation.
Mr Meacher: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, what steps the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is taking to reduce the average length of time taken before telephone calls from hon. Members are answered. 
Mr Charles Walker: The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has recently introduced a new call handling system. This has allowed IPSA to make a number of improvements (such as queuing calls more efficiently across a wider group of operatives) which will enable them to deal with calls more effectively and reduce the average call waiting time.
Graham Jones: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the House of Commons Commission has made of the increase in the House's income in 2011-12 arising from increased catering and bar prices; and whether the Commission has estimated the likely effect of those increased prices on the amount claimed by hon. Members for subsistence from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in 2011-12. 
Sir Stuart Bell:
It is difficult to forecast accurately the impact on take-up of services following price increases. However, the Commission intends that the increases will yield additional income of around £500,000 this year, and believes that this figure is a cautious estimate. The Commission is not responsible for Members' expenses and has made no estimate of the likely effect of the
price increases on amounts which will be claimed by hon. Members for subsistence from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
|Financial year||Arts sector support (£ million)|
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what discussions (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had with Ofcom on the Online Copyright Infringement Initial Obligations Code and (i) compliance with data protection and privacy law, (ii) the standard of evidence required to take action against alleged copyright infringers and (iii) ensuring a fair and accessible appeals process; and if he will make a statement. 
Hugh Robertson: DCMS officials have been in regular contact with Ofcom as they have consulted on the Initial Obligations Code, and considered their draft in the light of the responses they received. We will continue with this dialogue as both Ofcom and Government need to be confident that the code meets the requirements of the Digital Economy Act. This includes important aspects such as data protection and privacy, and the standard of evidence. We and Ofcom have always been clear that the appeals process is an important and integral part of the process.
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the total savings which will accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the closure of the regional offices of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. 
Hugh Robertson: The offices of the MLA's nine regional agencies were closed between January 2009 and March 2010. These closures and related savings enabled DCMS to reduce the MLA's core funding by £3.4 million per annum.
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the total savings which will accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. 
Hugh Robertson: The abolition of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) will free up resources for front line museum services, ensuring value for money and improving transparency about where taxpayers money is spent. Officials are working with the MLA to discuss the transfer of a number of existing programmes, including Renaissance in the Regions. MLA's allocation for 2010-11 is £62.6 million, however, until discussions on the transfer of programmes have been completed, it is not possible to estimate the total scale of savings per year. Further details on this will be given in due course.
Hugh Robertson: A total of £25,951,788 from the £40 million resource funding allocated for 2010-11 has been saved by ending the free swimming programme. An additional £25 million of capital funding allocated for the programme in 2010-11 has also been saved.
Mr Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of people in (a) Wales, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland who receive television through a relay transmitter. 
Mr Vaizey: I have made no such estimate. As the independent regulator for the communications industry, Ofcom is responsible for ensuring broadcasters and transmission operators comply with their licence conditions in areas such as transmission coverage and reception, including monitoring the quality and quantity of reception received through relay transmitters.
Hugh Robertson: The Government would like to see as many local television services emerge as the market can provide. We are currently awaiting the outcome of Nicholas Shott's review into the commercial viability of local television, including the areas and conurbations which might support these services. We expect to publish its proposals later this autumn.
Ms Bagshawe: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the contribution of the theatre sector to gross domestic product in each year since 1997. 
Hugh Robertson: No formal impact assessment was commissioned. The basis for the decision has been the need to find savings in all areas of the Department's spending, and to ensure that every pound of public money we allocate to supporting the film industry gives the maximum benefit. This commitment to the UK film industry is why we are increasing their share of lottery funding.
Gregg McClymont: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since his appointment he has held meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss the Future Jobs Fund in Scotland. 
Michael Moore: The Future Jobs Fund will be replaced next year by the Work Programme, which is being developed as part of the Government's plans to get Britain working. Existing commitments to the Future Jobs Fund are being met by the Government. I discussed the reform of the benefits system with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 28 July.
Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland with which (a) housing associations, (b) local authorities and (c) other organisations in Scotland he held meetings to discuss the impact of the proposed changes in housing benefit in July and August 2010. 
Michael Moore: The Department for Work and Pensions has had preliminary discussions with the Scottish Government and shall continue to liaise with it and key stakeholders on the changes to housing benefit affecting the social rented sector. As part of the process to introduce the necessary legislation the Department for Work and Pensions will publish its proposals and associated impact assessments in due course.
Michael Moore: During August 2010 my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and I visited a number of local authority areas on official business. In the course of the next few weeks we will carry out more such visits.
Mr Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Home Office Ministers on reductions to UK Border Agency funding for police posts at Stranraer port. 
Michael Moore: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in liaison with the Holy See, have led on all the arrangements for the Papal visit. As part of the visit to Scotland, Pope Benedict will be received at the Palace of Holyrood House by Her Majesty the Queen.
Gemma Doyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether officials in his Department will be permitted to attend official events comprising part of the Papal visit during working hours. 
Michael Moore: I will attend the reception being held at Holyrood House and I will be accompanied by one of my Private Office staff. The Scotland Office Director and one of the Deputy Directors have also been invited to attend. No other officials are formally attending the official events. Applications from staff for leave of absence to attend official events will be considered in the usual way.
Michael Moore: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are leading on all arrangements for the Papal visit. FCO officials and Lord Patten, the Prime Minister's Personal Representative on all matters pertaining to the visit, are in regular contact with the Scottish Catholic Bishops Conference.
Philip Davies: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities how many payments to suppliers were made by the Government Equalities Office (a) within 30 days of, (b) over 30 days after, (c) over 60 days after and (d) over 90 days after the date of invoice in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office calculates prompt payment statistics from the date the invoice is received within the Department and not from the actual date of the invoice. On this basis the latest figures we have available are as follows:
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the electro-magnetic catapult system designed for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will be capable of launching Dassault Rafale M. 
Peter Luff: On current plans, the Queen Elizabeth (QE) class aircraft carriers do not have an electro-magnetic catapult system in their design, as their initial configuration is for the operation of Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) aircraft. The US has developed the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for their CVN-78 programme. The adaptable nature of the QE class design would enable the fitting of an electro-magnetic catapult in the future, should that become a UK requirement; this would be capable of launching a number of aircraft types, including the Rafale M.
Richard Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) men and (b) women were recruited to each service through the armed forces careers centre in Gloucester in each of the last five years. 
Kris Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has paid to (a) local authorities in council tax and (b) Annington Homes in rent for empty properties in the defence housing estate in each of the last five years. 
Mr Robathan: The amount the Ministry of Defence (MOD) pays in council tax and rent for empty Service family accommodation properties, which are normally only empty for short periods between occupants, is not separately identifiable from that for other properties.
The MOD will always be required to hold a management margin of empty properties in order to ensure that homes are available for entitled Service families when required and to allow for major improvement works to take place.
Kris Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) service family accommodation units and (b) single living accommodation units have been classified as unfit for occupation in each of the last five years. 
Sometimes accommodation units are unable to be occupied for various reasons including demolition or major refurbishment. Our records do not separately identify such units from other unoccupied accommodation.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many units of accommodation for UK armed forces personnel there were in Germany at the latest date for which figures are available. 
Peter Luff: The total value of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP) cannot be confirmed until Main Gate approval has been obtained, which is likely to be early next year. Only at that point is the Department in a position to define, with confidence, the level of performance we can deliver, at what cost, by when and at what level of risk.
John Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites in (a) Aldermaston and (b) Burghfield.  [Official Report, 11 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 1MC.]
Peter Luff: Atomic Weapons Establishment plc employs 4,230 staff at the Aldermaston site and 340 staff at the Burghfield site. These numbers are full-time equivalent staff employed on 27 August 2010 and are rounded to the nearest 10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps were taken to protect (a) Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston, (b) emergency service personnel and (c) members of the public from asbestos contamination arising from the
fire at AWE Aldermaston on 3 August 2010; and what steps were taken to investigate potential asbestos contamination in the area surrounding the site of the fire. 
Peter Luff: Asbestos was known to be present in the structure of the building, so, while dealing with the incident, Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Fire and Rescue crews and other emergency services wore the appropriate personal protection equipment.
Since the fire, thorough sampling, both on and off-site, has not detected any asbestos outside the building, so the asbestos contamination is assessed to have been limited to within the building itself. As a result, there was no risk to AWE staff or members of the public. The asbestos that was found in the building is being dealt with in accordance with established safety procedures.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fire brigades attended the fire at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston on 3 August 2010; how many firefighting personnel attended; and how many fire appliances attended. 
Peter Luff: The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) attended with four fire appliances: two fire tenders, one ambulance and one fire response vehicle. The 11 AWE fire service personnel in attendance carried out the necessary fire fighting activities.
Royal Berkshire FRS attended and took the primary operational role after being fully briefed by AWE FRS of the situation, with AWE FRS then providing a support role. Hampshire FRS, the London Fire Brigade and the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation also attended.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and at what time the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston notified the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service of the fire at AWE Aldermaston on 3 August 2010. 
Peter Luff: The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Fire and Rescue Service were notified on 3 August 2010 at 9.06 pm. Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service were notified by AWE on 3 August 2010 at 9.08 pm and put on stand-by. The AWE Fire and Rescue Service requested that the Royal Berkshire Service attend at 9.23 pm.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the AWE Off-Site Contingency Arrangements were not activated to direct the response to the fire at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston on 3 August 2010. 
Peter Luff: The Atomic Weapons Establishment off-site emergency plan was not put into operation because this plan covers an incident where radioactivity is present, and there was no release of radioactive material.
The plans that were implemented were those relating to the conventional explosives area where the fire occurred. As an explosives licensed facility, its emergency plan is regulated by the Hazardous Installations Directorate, part of the Health and Safety Executive.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of each document provided by AWE plc of written instructions and advice to firefighting personnel attending incidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the Library. 
AWE plc does not produce separate written instructions and advice for firefighting personnel attending incidents. As part of the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) is required to comply
with instructions issued by the Home Office, the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Defence.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston have resulted in attendance of the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service in each year from 2006 to 2010; and on what dates each such incident occurred.  [Official Report, 11 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 2MC.]
Peter Luff: Since 2006, there have been four events at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston site where the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) has been requested to attend. In addition, there have been three events where RBFRS acted as a stand-by resource while the AWE Fire and Rescue Service attended the event. These are summarised in the following table:
|Percentage of invoices paid within five days of receipt|
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many transport-related fines his Department has settled on behalf of its staff in each year since 2005; and what the cost to the public purse was in each such year. 
Mr Robathan: There is no requirement to hold centrally details of fines incurred by Ministry of Defence officials while driving service vehicles; this information could, therefore, be provided only at disproportionate cost. Officials are, however, personally liable for the payment of any such fines, which are usually paid by the Department and then recovered from the individual. Only in exceptional circumstances, such as the death or retirement of the official, might it be impossible to recover such costs.
(2) what the objectives are of the co-ordinating role for the National Museum of the Royal Navy in respect of (a) the Royal Naval Museum, Portsmouth, (b) the Royal Marines Museum, Southsea, (c) the Royal Navy Submarine Museum, Gosport and (d) the Fleet Air Arm Museum, Yeovilton; 
Mr Robathan [holding answer 8 September 2010]: The Government welcome the establishment of the National Museum of the Royal Navy (NMRN) as a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. The Department and the Royal Navy look to the NMRN for leadership on naval heritage matters; and to ensure that the full range of our naval heritage assets are managed and employed in a coherent manner.
Dr Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason (a) the National Museum of the Royal Navy and (b) his Department, on behalf of HMS Victory have indicated an intention to withdraw from common ticketing arrangements for admission to Portsmouth Historic Dockyard; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the effect on (a) the Mary Rose Trust, (b) the Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust and (c) the Warrior Preservation Trust of the withdrawal of existing common ticketing arrangements; and if he will assess the (i) advantages and (ii) disadvantages of a takeover of the three trusts by the National Museum of the Royal Navy. 
[holding answer 8 September 2010]: For over a year the Ministry of Defence (MOD), together with the National Museum of the Royal Navy (NMRN), has been exploring with partners in Portsmouth Historic
Dockyard how best to develop a new governance construct for the Historic Dockyard that builds on the strengths of the current arrangements, reflects current realities and provides a strong base for handling future challenges. As part of this process of change, the NMRN and the MOD have announced their intention to withdraw from the current arrangements.
The assessment of any change within the governance structure of the Portsmouth Historic Dockyard is a matter for the boards of trustees of the individual attractions. I would certainly hope that the individual museums will be able to reach agreement with the National Museum on a new construct, and I understand a process of dialogue is continuing. Each trust is free to make its own decision on the nature of future arrangements in the Dockyard.
Nick Harvey: Ministry of Defence (MOD) flying activity ceased at RAF St Mawgan in 2008. The airfield was sold to Cornwall county council and now operates as Newquay Cornwall airport. There are no flying units located at the residual RAF St Mawgan site and MOD has no plans to conduct routine flying operations from the site for the foreseeable future.
Mr Robathan: Two members of staff are employed full time on the Trident Value for Money review, with a number of other Ministry of Defence staff providing significant input to the review within the scope of their existing posts.
As at the end of August, the total cost of both officials assigned full time on the Trident Value for Money review is approximately £70,000. The final staff cost is estimated to be approximately £120,000.
In addition, there has been some expenditure on external assistance and technical consultancy for the Value for Money review and linked aspects of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. It has not been possible, in the time available, to determine the precise amount attributable to the Trident Value for Money review and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.
Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the advice he received from officials of his Department on his decision on the Building Schools for the Future programme. 
Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether an estimate has been made of costs which will be incurred in the future by local authorities on Building Schools for the Future projects that will not now go ahead; what representations he has received from local authorities on the matter; whether he plans to provide compensation to local authorities for such costs; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 15 July 2010]: The costs incurred by individual local authorities and schools in preparing for Building Schools for the Future are not held centrally. The costs vary for local authorities depending on how they have chosen to manage their BSF projects and the stage they had reached. The Secretary of State has received representation from a number of MPs, local authorities and stakeholders. There are no plans to compensate local authorities for any costs incurred.
Mr Gibb [holding answer 28 June 2010]: On 5 July, the Secretary of State announced a major overhaul of capital expenditure on schools spearheaded by the capital review led by Sebastian James. To ensure that buildings are built on budget and on time, and to ensure that a higher proportion of capital investment gets rapidly to the front line, the announcement included the ending of a major part of the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. BSF developments are being maintained for three groups of schools:
those in a local authority area's initial BSF scheme where Financial Close has been reached;
the first projects due to be taken forward in a local authority area where Financial Close has not been reached but where very significant work has been undertaken, to the point of appointing a preferred bidder at "close of dialogue"; and
some schools with planned projects subsequent to their authority's initial scheme-projects with Outline Business Cases approved before 1 January 2010.
This means that the projects at Chesterfield High School and Crosby High Special School have stopped. Aintree Davenhill School is a primary school, and BSF did not fund projects at primary schools. The Primary Capital Programme funds primary school projects, and
its operation is different from BSF's-local authorities prioritise funds that the Department for Education allocates.
Sefton was allocated £9.6 million for 2008-11. According to information provided by the local authority, the first phase of Aintree Davenport is a £2 million refurbishment funded from its Primary Capital Programme allocation and which is due to be finished this year. The Department for Education does not hold information relating to subsequent phases of this project; it is for the local authority to make decisions about its priorities for primary investment.
Michael Gove: The Department for Education was created on 12 May 2010. In the predecessor Department for Children, Schools and Families £1.98 million was spent on non-consolidated performance pay in 2009-10. This represents 1.4% of the 2009-10 pay bill with 1,434 (52%) of staff receiving a non-consolidated performance payment. The average non-consolidated performance payment for senior civil service staff (97) was £8,732 and £851 for departmental staff (1,337).
All employees are eligible for non-consolidated performance payments, subject to strict criteria. Senior civil service non-consolidated payments are determined as part of a central performance management framework managed by the Cabinet Office. Payments for other grades are subject to the pay remit process and reflect previous pay settlements. Non-consolidated performance payments have to be re-earned each year and do not add to future pay bill costs (e.g. pensions).
Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his estimate is of the cost to the public purse of the re-branding of his Department (a) on the latest date for which figures are available and (b) in total. 
Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his policy is on the introduction of a new primary school curriculum in September 2011; and what recent representations he has received on such a curriculum. 
As I announced in my statement at oral questions on Monday 7 June, the Government do not intend to proceed with the changes to the primary curriculum that the previous Government had proposed for introduction in September 2011. We have had a number of representations about such a curriculum. As our document "The Coalition: our programme for
government" makes clear, we intend to allow schools more freedom over the curriculum: we believe that the approach which the previous Government proposed was too prescriptive in terms of how teachers should teach. We were also deeply concerned about the proposed move away from teaching distinct subject disciplines at primary level.
We want to ensure that our national curriculum is a properly international curriculum that reflects the best collective wisdom we have about how children learn, what they should know and how quickly they can grow in knowledge. We want to arrive at a simple core, informed by the best international practice, which will provide a minimum entitlement for pupils and which can act as a benchmark against which parents can ask meaningful and informed questions about progress. We will announce our detailed plans for reviewing the curriculum in the autumn.
Mr Gibb: The Harnessing Technology grant is being reduced by £100 million in the current financial year. £50 million of the reduction has been used to provide capital for Free Schools as announced on 18 June. A further £50 million is the result of the 5 July announcement on End Year Flexibility (EYF), and is to address inherited spending commitments for 2010-11, where funding was reliant on under-spends through the EYF system or additional funding from the Reserve.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what minimum notice period of the date and time of deportation her Department has set for failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. 
Damian Green: A minimum of 72 hours (including at least two working days) must generally be allowed between informing a person of their removal directions and the removal itself. The last 24 hours of this period must include a working day. There are occasions where this will not apply which officers should consider before setting removal directions.
|Average ratio of consultants to civil servants|
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many forced removals have children been separated from a primary carer and remained in the care of children's services departments or in private fostering arrangements in the last 10 years. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency has a policy of not separating parents from children although it will sometimes have to deal with circumstances in which such a separation has already taken place. Information about those circumstances is not recorded centrally by the UK Border Agency and can be obtained only through examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.
Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the detection rates for (a) burglary offences, (b) violence against the person, (c) murder and (d) all reported offences were in (i) Gloucestershire and (ii) England and Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
From 1 April 2007 the rules governing recording of non-sanction detections were revised to reduce the scope within which they can be claimed to a very small limited set of circumstances. This has significantly reduced the number of non-sanction detections which has been reflected in the overall detection rates.
Figures for the category of 'homicide' are provided rather than for murder. When a victim of homicide is discovered it is not always possible at the time of recording to determine whether the offence is one of murder or manslaughter.
|Detection rates for selected offences in Gloucestershire and England and Wales, 2009-10|
|Gloucestershire||England and Wales|
|Offence||All detections||Sanction detections||All detections||Sanction detections|
|(1 )Including offences of homicide.|
(2 )Includes offences of murder, manslaughter and infanticide.
(3 )Offences detected in the current year were initially recorded in an earlier year and for this reason the percentage exceeds 100.
Damian Collins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will take steps to end the retention of (a) DNA samples and (b) fingerprints of those arrested for but not convicted of an offence; and if she will make a statement. 
James Brokenshire [holding answer 6 September 2010]: We are determined to ensure that the National DNA Database only contains the DNA of those who should be on it, including those who have been convicted but whose DNA was not previously taken.
The Government will bring forward proposals in the Freedom Bill later this year to end the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprints taken from those not convicted of crime. We will achieve this by adopting protections similar to those offered by the Scottish model for DNA retention, under which DNA from those not convicted is only held in the case of serious offences-and then only for a limited period. DNA and fingerprints taken in respect of a minor offence will not be retained at all for those who are not convicted.
James Brokenshire: As at 30 June 2010, there were 6,261,470 DNA profile records on the National DNA Database (NDNAD) taken by all UK police forces, which relate to an estimated 5,378,663 individuals. At the same date, there were 5,859,508 profile records taken by police forces in England and Wales, which relate to an estimated 5,042,201 individuals.
The number of individuals is estimated because a proportion of DNA profiles held on the NDNAD are replicates, that is a person's profile has been loaded on more then one occasion, for example because a person gave different names on separate arrests. The presence of these replicate profiles on the NDNAD does not impact on the effectiveness and integrity of the database.
Mike Crockart: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding has been allocated for women with no recourse to public funds to seek refuge from domestic abuse after the end of the pilot period in August 2010. 
James Brokenshire: A Home Office pilot project for victims of domestic violence with no recourse to public funds commenced in November 2009 and was scheduled to run to the end of August 2010. On 16 July, the Home Secretary announced an extension to the pilot until the end of March 2011 with funding to support it.
The Home Office has allocated over £1.9 million to support the pilot in 2010-11. Costs of the pilot are subject to the number of eligible referrals received and so total costs for the period after August 2010 will not be known until its completion. The Government have also committed to finding a long term solution to this issue.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the security arrangements in place intended to prevent arms smuggling in the UK. 
Damian Green: The UK Border Agency enforce the prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of arms into the UK, working closely with the Serious Organised Crime Agency and police forces, with whom they share information and intelligence. They also collaborate on operations to disrupt smuggling attempts and to follow up detections of firearms.
In the last two years (2008-09 and 2009-10) the Border Agency has met its published target to increase its firearms seizures by 10% year on year. In 2009-10, that meant there were 296 seizures of firearms and stun guns totalling 870 items, and 56 seizures of gun parts and ammunition totalling 3,325 items. Seizure statistics for previous years are contained in HM Revenue and Customs Annual Reports.
The latest UK National Threat Assessment (UKTA) on organised crime describes and assess the threats posed to the UK by organised criminals and considers how these threats may develop, including in relation to firearms. The UKTA 2009-10 states that there is no evidence that firearms are trafficked into the UK on a significant scale.
Tracey Crouch: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the number of convictions that could be overturned as a consequence of being based on low copy number DNA; and if she will make a statement. 
In November 2006 the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) set up a multi-agency group to consider and oversee reanalysis of all low copy number samples analysed by the Forensic Science Service prior to September 2005. This was referred to as Operation Cube. Under this operation the police service and FSS Ltd identified 4,841 samples that required re-analysis. The FSS undertook this work, free of charge, and 885 new DNA profiles were obtained. These profiles related to 342 criminal investigations across a range of crime. The results of the re analysis have been reported to police forces and they have taken action based on these results. There were 15 cases with the potential for new and significant lines of inquiry.
Only two of the 15 cases have resulted in prosecution and conviction. In both cases the reanalysed DNA evidence was made available to the defence. But in neither case did DNA play a significant part. One conviction was quashed under appeal, through evidence unconnected to DNA. An appeal in the other case was unsuccessful and I am advised that, although the DNA analysis reinforced earlier findings, the DNA evidence as a whole had a very limited impact upon the judgment. In one other case, the reanalysis led to the elimination of persons previously suspected of, but not charged with, the crime.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|