|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what datasets not included within the national indicator set local authorities are required to submit to (a) his Department and (b) the Better Regulation Executive. 
Bob Spink: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of women resident in (a) Essex and (b) Castle Point who have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. 
Mr. McFadden: From April 2007 all employed mothers are entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave, of which 39 may be paid. Employers are not required to record or report the uptake of maternity leave to the Government.
The most recent estimates of take-up of maternity leave are based on the DWP "Maternity Rights and Mothers' employment decisions in Britain: Survey of Mothers" (2007). In 2006, when the mothers included in the study went on maternity leave, the statutory entitlement to Ordinary Maternity Leave (OML) was 26 weeks, while mothers who had worked for their employer for a qualifying period of 26 weeks were also entitled to Additional Maternity Leave (AML) of 26 weeks. The Office for National Statistics estimate there were 15,370 live births in Essex in 2006.
84 per cent. took 26 weeks or more maternity leave;
35 per cent. took exactly 26 weeks maternity leave;
46 per cent. of mothers took between 27 and 52 weeks and 3 per cent. were off for more than 52 weeks;
16 per cent. of mothers took less than the statutory minimum entitlement (i.e. 26 weeks in 2006).
The next "Maternity Rights" survey will be based on mothers who took maternity leave starting in summer
2008. It is due to report later in 2010. The "Maternity Rights" survey sample is not large enough to produce robust estimates at constituency or county levels.
Adam Afriyie: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what the cost to the public purse of the Science: [So what? So everything] programme has been in each year since its launch; how many officials in each pay band are responsible for that programme; and what mechanisms are in place to measure the effectiveness of that programme. 
2008-09: £601,200 ex VAT (covers period from start of campaign 28 January 2009 to end of FY)
2009-10: £1,261,000 ex VAT (includes actual and projected costs for this FY)
The fraction of any individual official's time dedicated to the campaign varies between less than 10 per cent. to upwards of 80 per cent. The campaign is overseen by a senior civil service manager as part of the Department's Science and Society programme.
2 x Grade 6
1 x Grade 7
1 x Senior Information Officer
1 x Information Officer
The Science: [So what] campaign is one aspect of a wider initiative to promote public engagement in science which includes support for activities like National Science and Engineering Week and the work of outside individuals and organisations who are helping to take forward the BIS Science and Society strategy. The campaign plays a part in contributing to the success of this broad-based activity. Its aim is to focus on putting science in places that it would not typically be associated with, such as consumer and tabloid media and thereby demonstrating to the public how important science is to their everyday lives
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Science: [So what] campaign, BIS uses a range of measures, including visits to the campaign website, the extent that media coverage has reached the campaign's core audience and its return on investment for media coverage. An Ipsos-MORI survey is also being conducted with a representative sample of 2,000 people from the C2DE (lower income) core audience, in order to gauge their recognition of the campaign, its messages and the media channels used.
Adam Afriyie: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how much his Department spent on creating the Science: [So what? So everything] website; what estimate he has made of the annual cost of maintaining that website; how many unique visitors that website (a) has received since its launch and (b) receives on average each day; and how many officials in each pay band are responsible for maintaining that website. 
2008-09: £56,440 (development costs for the landing site before campaign launch 28 January 2010)
121,589 unique visitors
an average of 320 unique visits per day.
359,737 page views over the same period.
The fraction of any individual official's time dedicated to the campaign varies between less than 10 per cent. to upwards of 80 per cent. The campaign is overseen by a senior civil service manager as part of the Department's Science and Society programme. The following officials are involved in the management of the contract for maintaining the site, with delivery contracted to an agency:
1 x Grade 6
1 x Information Officer
Adam Afriyie: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of people in each age group who have attended events supported by his Department's Science: [So what? So everything] programme. 
Adam Afriyie: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what programmes and initiatives received funding from the other minor science programmes budget referred to in Table 11 of his Department's Departmental Report for 2009; and how much such funding was allocated to each such programme and initiative in the latest year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Harper: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 15 December 2009, Official Report, column 1095W, on students: disabled, what functions Postcomm performs in relation to the delivery of financial support for disabled students; and when he expects the Chief Executive of Postcomm to write with a substantive reply. 
Mr. Lammy [holding answer 26 February 2010]: I regret that due to an administrative error the Department's Parliamentary Unit issued the wrong answer to the hon. Member's question tabled on 10 December 2009 (307712). I apologise to the hon. Member. The answer should have been:
The Government have made available £45 million in the academic year 2009/10 through the Access to Learning Fund to provide financial support for students who need extra help to access or remain in higher education. The fund is administered by the universities and colleges which make their own decisions on how best to use their ALF allocation, including whether or not to make short-term loans (for whatever reason). Information on the uses to which the universities and colleges are putting their 2009/10 allocation is not available.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will place in the Library copies of the minutes of meetings of the (a) Business and Community Safety Forum and (b) Practitioners' Forum held in the last 18 months. 
Mr. Malik: Minutes of the Business and Community Safety Forum meetings held in the last 18 months will be placed in the Library of the House. Minutes of the Practitioners' Forum are produced by the Chief Fire Officers' Association which provides its secretariat and are available at:
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what requirements there will be on local planning authorities to update charging schedules under the Community Infrastructure Levy scheme. 
Mr. Ian Austin:
There will be no formal requirements for authorities to revise their charging schedules. Part 3 of the draft CIL regulations covers charging schedules. The Government's position on revising charging schedules
is set out in paragraphs 3.134 and 3.135 of the CIL consultation document of July 2009, available at the following link:
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps are being taken to prevent developers from being charged under both the Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy schemes. 
Mr. Ian Austin: Regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) were laid before Parliament on 10 February 2010. If approved by Parliament, the CIL regulations will scale back planning obligations to prevent charging for the same infrastructure items through both CIL and planning obligations. Bodies operating a CIL will be required by Regulation 123 to set out what infrastructure they intend to fund through CIL and will be prevented from seeking planning obligation contributions towards those same items.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what conditions will apply to expenditure by local planning authorities receipts from Community Infrastructure Levy which they receive from developers. 
Mr. Ian Austin: Sections 205 (2) and 216 (2) of the Planning Act 2008 ringfence CIL receipts for spending on infrastructure items that support the development of an area, subject to CIL Regulation 63, which prevents CIL from being used to fund affordable housing and Regulation 61, which allows authorities to use a percentage of CIL receipts to finance the administrative costs of CIL.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance is being given to local planning authorities on the use of Grampian conditions alongside the Community Infrastructure Levy to ensure development does not proceed until infrastructure has been delivered. 
Mr. Ian Austin: The Government's policy on the use of planning conditions is set out in Circular 11/95. The Government launched a consultation on a new policy document on conditions on 21 December 2009, which will form an annex to the new Development Management Policy Statement, on which a consultation was launched on the same date.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much funding (a) his Department and (b) regional efficiency improvement partnerships have given to the East of England Waste Prevention Network since its inception. 
Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnerships (RIEPs) report to the Department on the basis of outcomes achieved and objectives delivered; they are
not required to report in detail about to whom they have given money. However, we understand that RIEPs have not provided any funding to the East of England Waste Prevention Network.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance (a) his Department and (b) the chief fire officer has provided to fire authorities on consistency in the application of fire safety assessments to hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation. 
The National Framework 2008-11 makes it clear that we expect fire and rescue authorities to be mindful of the need to take an open and proportionate approach to their audit and enforcement functions in accordance with the principles of good enforcement set out in the Enforcement Concordat and the Regulators' Compliance Code, to which FRAs are required to have regard.
The Department worked in partnership with representatives of small accommodation providers and the Chief Fire Officers Association to develop information for small accommodation providers on the compliance requirements of the FSO. "Do you have paying guests?" was published in November 2008 and provides practical information for the owners of these type of businesses and the fire and rescue services on what is likely to represent proportionate fire safety measures in these types of premises.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much has been spent on (a) empty property business rates, (b) utilities, (c) rent and other accommodation costs and (d) security on each regional fire control room; and for how many months each has been empty. 
|Utilities (up to end January)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|