Docstoc

Enquiry Memo

Document Sample
Enquiry Memo Powered By Docstoc
					Date of Proceeding: 05.04.2011
Reference: 526 c123-4C

Answering Department: Minister for Women and Equalities
Lead Member: Featherstone, Lynne

Counter Member: Patel, Priti
Other Members:

Title: Women and equalities Equal Opportunities: nationality
Description/Summary: Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities what
guidance (a) the Government Equalities Office and (b) the Equality and Human Rights
Commission issues on the practice of businesses offering discounts to persons based on
their nationality. [47854]

[Official Report, 21 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 763W.]

Letter of correction from Lynne Featherstone:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti
Patel) on 21 March 2011. It is the Equality and Human Rights Commission that has
published non-statutory guidance on the Equality Act 2010, not the European Court of
Human Rights.


5 Apr 2011 : Column 14MC

The full answer given was as follows:

Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office has not issued any specific guidance
relevant to the practice of business offering discounts to persons based on their nationality.
The European Court of Human Rights has published non-statutory guidance on the Equality
Act 2010 for service providers.

It would not normally be lawful for a business to offer discounts based on the protected
characteristic of race, which includes nationality and ethnic or national origins.

The correct answer should have been:

Lynne Featherstone: The Government Equalities Office has not issued any specific guidance
relevant to the practice of business offering discounts to persons based on their nationality.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published non-statutory guidance on the
Equality Act 2010 for service providers.

It would not normally be lawful for a business to offer discounts based on the protected
characteristic of race, which includes nationality and ethnic or national origins.
Date of Proceeding: 04.04.2011
Reference: 526 c12MC

Answering Department: Northern Ireland Office
Lead Member: Swire, Hugo

Counter Member: Long, Naomi
Other Members:
Title: Air Passenger Duty

Description/Summary: The following is the answer given by the Minister of State, Northern
Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) relating to a question from
the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) during Northern Ireland Question Time on 23
March 2011.

3. Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): What assessment he has made of the likely effects
of changes in air passenger duty on business travel between Northern Ireland and London.
[47494]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): I have had meetings with the
Northern Ireland Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and with my hon. Friend the
Economic Secretary to the Treasury to discuss air passenger duty. My Treasury colleagues
fully understand the issues involved. The rates that took effect last November were, of
course, set and legislated for by the previous Government.

Naomi Long: I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that, in addition to air
passenger duty, Heathrow and Gatwick intend to levy passenger landing charges for regional
flights, which will compound the problem. Will he confirm that this matter is at the top of his
agenda, so that we can ensure that Northern Ireland businesses have access to the capital?

Mr Swire: Indeed; these things have been discussed at ministerial level. I am glad that my
right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here to listen to the hon. Lady's
comments. We take this matter very seriously. A lot of the issues to do with Gatwick and
Heathrow are commercial matters that are more properly dealt with by BAA.

[Official Report, 23 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 934.]

Letter of correction from Mr Hugo Swire:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 23 March 2011. It has come to our
attention that commercial matters at Gatwick airport are not the responsibility of BAA, who
recently sold the airport to a consortium, with the largest shareholder being Global
Infrastructure Partners.

The correct answer should have been:

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Hugo Swire): Indeed; these things have
been discussed at ministerial level. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to
the Treasury is here to listen to the hon. Lady's comments. We take this matter very



                                               2
seriously. A lot of the issues to do with Gatwick and Heathrow are commercial matters that
are more properly dealt with by Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) and BAA respectively.




Date of Proceeding: 04.04.2011
Reference: 526 c11MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Shapps, Grant
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Unpublished Research Reports: Immigration, the Economy and Regeneration

Description/Summary: The following is an extract from a written ministerial statement on '
Unpublished Research Reports: Immigration, the Economy and Regeneration ' given by the
Minister for Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield
(Grant Shapps) on 1 March 2011.

(ix) Modelling and forecasting county court claims and orders for mortgage repossessions.

This report by Professor John Muellbauer and Janine Aron was commissioned jointly by the
former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit and the UK Spatial Economic Centre. The
study explores the determinants of mortgage possession court orders as well as forecasting
court orders on a regional basis for England and Wales from 2011 to 2015. It observed that
the recent house price and credit boom of 2006-08 had increased the proportion of
households with overstretched budgets and over-extended debt relative to their assets. The
most important determinant of court claims and orders was found to be the debt to income
ratio. This report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £30,366.

[Official Report, 1 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 19-21WS.]

Letter of correction from Mr Grant Shapps:

An error has been identified in the written ministerial statement given on 1 March 2011. The
penultimate sentence in the text in the section on the research project on mortgage
repossessions should have referred to the debt service ratio, as the most important
determinant of court claims, and not the debt to income ratio.

The correct text should have read:

(ix) Modelling and forecasting county court claims and orders for mortgage repossessions.

This report by Professor John Muellbauer and Janine Aron was commissioned jointly by the
former National Housing and Planning Advice Unit and the UK Spatial Economic Centre. The
study explores the determinants of mortgage possession court orders as well as forecasting
court orders on a regional basis for England and Wales from 2011 to 2015. It observed that
the recent house price and credit boom of 2006-08 had increased the proportion of
households with overstretched budgets and over-extended debt relative to their assets. The



                                              3
most important determinant of court claims and orders was found to be the debt service ratio.
This report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £30,366.




Date of Proceeding: 01.04.2011
Reference: 526 c10MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Miller, Maria

Counter Member: Stewart, Iain
Other Members:

Title: Work and Pensions Employment Support Services
Description/Summary: Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and
Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of (a)
members of the House of Commons Management Board, (b) heads of department of the
House of Commons and (c) heads of each office or service in each House of Commons
department are women. [47823]

[Official Report, 18 March 2011, Vol. 525, c. 695W.]

Letter of correction from Mr John Thurso:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on 18 March 2011.

The full answer given was as follows:

John Thurso: The information is as follows:

(a) The House of Commons Management Board comprises the Clerk of the House (Chair),
the Directors General of the four departments of the House and the Director of PICT, which
is a joint department of the two Houses. There is also an external member. The proportion of
women is 17%. A new department, the Department of Finance, will be launched on 1 April
2011. The Head of the new department will sit on the Management Board, and her presence
will alter the proportion of women on the Board to 29%. (b) The proportion of women who are
heads of the four current departments of the House is zero and will rise to 20% of five
departments in April. If PICT is included, the figures are 17.5% and 33% respectively. (c)
Currently, there are 27 Directors/Heads of Office. 10 of these (43%) are women. If PICT is
included, the figure is 37%.

The correct answer should have been:

John Thurso: The information is as follows:




                                              4
(a) The House of Commons Management Board comprises the Clerk of the House (Chair),
the Directors General of the four departments of the House and
1 Apr 2011 : Column 10MC
the Director of PICT, which is a joint department of the two Houses. There is also an external
member. The proportion of women is 17%. A new department, the Department of Finance,
will be launched on 1 April 2011. The Head of the new department will sit on the
Management Board, and her presence will alter the proportion of women on the Board to
29%. (b) The proportion of women who are heads of the four current departments of the
House is zero and will rise to 20% of five departments in April. If PICT is included, the figures
are 20% and 33% respectively. (c) Currently, there are 23 Directors/Heads of Office below
Head of Department level. 10 of these (43%) are women. If PICT is included, the figure is
37%.




Date of Proceeding: 31.03.2011
Reference: 526 c7-8MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Webb, Steve

Counter Member: Reeves, Rachel
Other Members:
Title: Work and Pensions Draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions,
Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011
Description/Summary: The following response was given by the Minister of State,
Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)
to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) during the First Delegated Legislation
Committee d ebate on the Draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions,
Rebates and Minimum Contributions) Order 2011 on 21 March 2011.


31 Mar 2011 : Column 8MC

Steve Webb: The process is neutral: as the rebate falls, so too does the promise that has to
be matched. Schemes could, if they wanted to-this is a substantive point-reduce their accrual
rates within the scheme.

[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2011, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from Steve Webb:

I made the above statement in my response to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel
Reeves).

The correct response should have been:

Steve Webb: When the rebate rate is reduced in 2012, the reference scheme test for
contracted-out salary-related schemes-Defined Benefit-will remain the same, so it is



                                               5
schemes that offer benefits that are more generous than the reference scheme test that
could choose to adjust their benefits in order to take account of a reduction in the rebate.




Date of Proceeding: 29.03.2011
Reference: 526 c3-6MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Davies, Philip
Other Members:

Title: Assaults on Police: Sentencing
Description/Summary: Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many
assaults on police officers resulted in (a) custodial and (b) non-custodial sentences in the
latest period for which figures are available; [44933]

(2) how many cautions were issued in each of the last three years for triable offences.
[44934]

[Official Report, 10 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 1271W.]


29 Mar 2011 : Column 4MC

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley
(Philip Davies) on 10 March 2011. The figures in table 2 were incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for an
assault on a constable at all courts, in England and Wales for 2009 (latest available) is
provided in table 1. This is a summary only offence which is charged where little or no
physical harm is involved. Where there are more serious injuries this would result in a charge
of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and it is not possible to say how many convictions
for this offence arise from assaults on police officers.

The number of offenders cautioned for indictable only offences in England and Wales, 2007
to 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 2.

Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring of 2011.

[Table as originally provided printed. Click on Web Location to view]

Not shown

The correct answer should have been:


                                              6
Mr Blunt: The number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for an
assault on a constable at all courts, in England and Wales for 2009 (latest available) is
provided in table 1. This is a summary only offence which is charged where little or no
physical harm is involved. Where there are more serious injuries this would result in a charge
of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and it is not possible to say how many convictions
for this offence arise from assaults on police officers.

The number of offenders cautioned for indictable only offences in England and Wales, 2007
to 2009 (latest available) is provided in table 2.

Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring of 2011.

[Corrected table printed - click on Web Location to view]

Table 1: Number of defendants sentenced and given an immediate custody for assault on a
constable( 1) at all courts, England and Wales, 2009( 2,3)
Statute   Offence                                 Sentenced Custodial             Other disposals(
                                                                                  4)
                                                            sentence
Police   Assault on a constable                   9,201           1,457           7,744
Act 1996
    (1)
             Police       Act       1996       s.89(1)-Assault        on     a      constable.
    (2)
        The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these
    offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant
    has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest
    penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the
    offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most
    severe.
    (3)
        Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete.
    However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large
    administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence,
    care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their Inevitable limitations
    are       taken      into      account       when        those      data    are     used.
    (4)
        Other disposals include: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, fine, community
    sentence,        suspended        sentence       and        otherwise     dealt      with.
    Source:
    Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
    Table 2: Number of offenders cautioned( 1,2) for indictable only offences, England and
    Wales, 2007-09( 3)
                                                          2007            2008     2009
    Indictable only                                       2,676           1,945    1,405
    (1)
       The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal
    offences for which they were dealt with. When an offender has been cautioned for two or
    more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence.



                                              7
     (2)
         From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and
     removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and replaced them with reprimands and
     warnings.       These      figures    have     been       included   in    the     totals.
     (3)
         Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete.
     However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large
     administrative data systems generated by police forces. As a consequence, care should be
     taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into
     account              when             those             data          are           used.
     Source:
     Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice



Date of Proceeding: 21.03.2011
Reference: 525 19-22mc

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin

Counter Member: Brown, Lyn
Other Members:

Title: JUSTICE Prostitution: Newham
Description/Summary: Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many
convictions there were for (a) kerb crawling, (b) soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a
public place, (c) keeping a brothel and (d) control of prostitution in respect of offences
committed in the London borough of Newham in (i) 2008, (ii) 2009 and (iii) 2010. [33388]

[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 652-53W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for West Ham
(Lyn Brown) on 17 January 2011. The figures in the table for the number of defendants
convicted for keeping a brothel in the Metropolitan police force area were incorrect along with
some of the information included in the footnotes that accompanied the table.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related
offences in the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 to 2009 can be viewed in
the table.

Information at borough level is not collated centrally by the Ministry of Justice.

Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for publication in the spring.

[Corrected table given]



                                                8
Number of defendants found guilty at all courts for selected prostitution related offences in
the Metropolitan police force area for the years 2008 - 09( 1,2,3)
Offence                                                                       2008        2009
Kerb crawling                                                                 165         117
Soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in a public place                 114         65
Keeping a brothel                                                             11          15
Control of prostitution                                                       16          4
(1)
   The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these
offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has
been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is
imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected
is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(2 )
    Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete.
However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative
data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be
taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into
account                when              those                 data             are             used.
(3)
      Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:
Kerb                                                                                       crawling:
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1985,                 s.1
Kerb                                                                                        crawling
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1985,                 s.2
Persistent soliciting of person or persons for the purpose of prostitution
Soliciting     for      the    purposes       of       prostitution      in   a     public     place:
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1985,                 s.1
Common prostitute loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution
Keeping                                             a                                        brothel:
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.33A as added by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.55
Keeping                    a                 brothel                    for              prostitution
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1956                 s.33
Keeping                                              a                                        brothel
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1956                 s.34
Letting            premises           for               use            as         a           brothel
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1956                 s.35
Tenant       permitting        premises          to        be       used      as      a       brothel
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1956                 s.36
Tenant        permitting        premises          to        be        used      for      prostitution
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.33 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967
Keeping              a           brothel               for            homosexual            practices
Sexual                    Offences                     Act                  1956                 s.34
Letting     premises       for   use      as      a      brothel     for    homosexual      practices
Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.35 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.53
Tenant permitting premises to be used as a brothel for homosexual practices



                                                 9
Similar                  provisions                 in             Local                 Acts
Other              offences            against           keeping          a           brothel
Control                                       of                                 prostitution:
Sexual                   Offences                 Act                2001                 s.53
Controlling                       prostitution                   for                      gain
Source:
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice.




Date of Proceeding: 21.03.2011
Reference: 525 17-20mc

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin

Counter Member: Shuker, Gavin
Other Members:

Title: JUSTICE Prisoners: Sentencing

Description/Summary: Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many
people were serving a custodial sentence of (a) five years or fewer, (b) four years or fewer,
(c) three years or fewer, (d) two years or fewer and (e) one year or less for each category of
offence in the latest period for which figures are available.[32361]

[Official Report, 21 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 1166W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Luton South
(Gavin Shuker) on 21 December 2010. The figures in the table supplied on the breakdown of
the custodial prison population for various sentence lengths by offence group for 30
September 2010 are incorrect.


21 Mar 2011 : Column 19MC

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The following table provides information on custodial sentences in prison
establishments in England and Wales by sentence length band and offence category as at
30 September 2010.


21 Mar 2011 : Column 20MC

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large
scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing


                                              10
[Corrected table given]




Custodial prison population as of 30 September 2010 by sentence length and offence category
                     Sentence length
Offence category     Less than five Less     than Less      than Less than two Less     than
                     years          four years    three years    years         one year
Violence     against 7,097         5,951           4,594        3,154          1,736
the person
Sexual offences      2,882         1,742           1,245        721            208
Robbery              3,394         2,484           1,730        930            142
Burglary             4,596         4,144           2,963        1,719          499
Theft and handling 3,594           3,484           3,016        2,514          2,019
Fraud and forgery    1,166         1,060           826          573            322
Drug offences        5,840         4,306           2,997        1,600          224
Motoring offences 847              835             737          633            532
Other offences       4,819         4,392           3,695        2,953          2,221
Offences          not 408          372             315          253            193
recorded



Date of Proceeding: 21.03.2011
Reference: 525 11-18mc

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Djanogly, Jonathan
Counter Member: Brooke, Annette
Other Members:
Title: JUSTICE Care Proceedings

Description/Summary: Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many
care proceedings cases in each local authority area are currently open in the family courts;
how many were open in each of the last five years; and how many have reached a
conclusion (a) in 2010 to date and (b) each of the last five years. [226]

[Official Report, 3 June 2010, Vol. 510, c. 55-59W.]


21 Mar 2011 : Column 12MC

Letter of correction from Mr Jonathan Djanogly:




                                              11
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset
and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on 3 June 2010. The December 2008 figures in Table 1 of
the response in relation to care supervision orders outstanding in the Family Proceedings
Courts (FPCs) are incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Djanogly: Table 1 shows the number of care and supervision cases outstanding as at the
end of December in each year from 2005 to 2009 in the Family Proceedings Courts and
County Courts of England and Wales. Data are presented by HM Courts Service areas as a
local authority area breakdown is not collected centrally and could be obtained only through
the inspection of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

[Corrected tables given]

Table 1
                     Total number of care and Total number of care and
                     supervision outstanding cases in the supervision outstanding cases in
                     Family Proceedings Court             the County Courts
                     December                            December
HMCS area            2005   2006   2007 2008     2009    2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Avon and Somerset 342       350    348    319    370     260    303    275    310    389
Devon           and
Cornwall,       and
Gloucestershire
Bedfordshire,     227       187    216    218    301     188    221    175    179    320
Hertfordshire and
Thames Valley
Cambridgeshire,    282      264    372    351    371     273    236    241    233    286
Essex, Norfolk and
Suffolk
Cheshire        and 126     225    210    188    253     240    300    248    261    356
Merseyside
Cleveland, Durham 484       642    636    374    533     198    270    264    235    317
and Northumbria
Cumbria         and 82      115    113    86     101     185    198    218    200    297
Lancashire
Dorset, Hampshire 162       154    206    205    215     160    151    173    165    233
and Isle of Wight
and Wiltshire
East Midlands        395    444    367    553    560     164    176    176    214    287
Greater Manchester 133      174    140    351    295     361    378    394    353    547
Humber and South 166        183    188    115    201     252    265    239    245    335


                                            12
Yorkshire
Kent Surrey       and 325   340      364   282    512     256     260    287   245    340
Sussex
London Civil and 1,017 1,020 888           959    1,426 850       733    724   561    758
Family
Mid and          West 94    106      97    115    168     67      43     40    53     115
Wales
North and        West 185   169      293   247    409     229     258    240   225    294
Yorkshire
North Wales          16     25       30    41     57      57      77     67    52     80
South East Wales     157    205      162   108    260     136     133    122   116    156
Staffordshire     and 152   217      219   201    274     104     115    88    88     148
West Mercia
West Midlands and 303       320      332   259    966     391     340    342   294    464
Warwickshire
National total       4,648 5,140 5,181 4,979 7,272 4,371 4,457 4,313 4,029 5,722
Notes:
1. The data are taken from the HMCS FamilyMan System and Family Case Tracker.
2.       The       figures       relate     to       the      new         HMCS         areas.
3. The total number of outstanding cases show the total number of care and supervisions cases
open at the end of December each year.



Table 2 shows the number of care and supervision orders made in each calendar year from
2004 to 2008 for county courts and the High Court.

Table 2
                                    Care and supervision orders made in the County Courts
                                    and High Court, England and Wales
HMCS area                           2004   2005    2006    2007    2008
Avon and Somerset, Devon and 395           355     334     372     450
Cornwall and Gloucestershire
Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and 386        274     337     310     331
Thames Valley
Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk 327         325     445     399     350
and Suffolk
Cheshire and Merseyside             330    396     393     466     453
Cleveland,        Durham         and 369   403     303     349     464
Northumbria
Cumbria and Lancashire              316    257     342     327     283


                                             13
Dorset, Hampshire and IOW and 311            255     299     255      272
Wiltshire
East Midlands                       391      369     299     292      351
Greater Manchester                  561      490     715     736      579
                                                                      21 Mar 2011 : Column
                                                                      17MC

                                                                      21 Mar 2011 : Column
                                                                      18MC

Humber and South Yorkshire          435      489     559     611      476
Kent, Surrey and Sussex             266      200     418     471      371
London Civil and Family             916      846     989     878      868
Mid and West Wales                  82       113     109     100      71
North and West Yorkshire            516      427     484     552      530
North Wales                         106      84      92      167      173
South East Wales                    240      278     262     239      168
West Mercia and Staffordshire       175      195     208     253      186
West Midlands and Warwickshire 474           509     588     434      446
National Total                      6,596    6,265   7,176   7,211    6,822
Notes:
1.     The      data    are    taken    from      the    HMCS FamilyMan System.
2. Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application.
3. Disposals in each year may relate to applications made in earlier years.
4. Figures are provided for County Courts and the High Court.



Table 3 shows the number of care and supervision orders made from April 2007 to December
2008 in the Family Proceedings Courts; figures for earlier periods are not available for these
areas.

More recent statistics than those shown are not yet available.

Table 3
                                          Care and supervision orders made in the Family
                                          Proceedings Courts, England and Wales
HMCS area                                 April 2007 to December January 2008 to December
                                          2007                   2008
Avon and Somerset, Devon and 262                                     361
Cornwall and Gloucestershire



                                               14
Bedfordshire,      Hertfordshire   and 174                     272
Thames Valley
Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and 133                         202
Suffolk
Cheshire and Merseyside               139                      135
Cleveland, Durham and Northumbria     327                      387
Cumbria and Lancashire                85                       84
Dorset, Hampshire and Isle of Wight 107                        121
and Wiltshire
East Midlands                         198                      372
Greater Manchester                    76                       116
Humber and South Yorkshire            64                       153
Kent, Surrey and Sussex               161                      258
London Crime, Central and South       533                      543
Mid and West Wales                    69                       56
North and West Yorkshire              176                      214
North Wales                           9                        43
South East Wales                      149                      172
West Mercia and Staffordshire         172                      239
West Midlands and Warwickshire        93                       129
National total                        2,927                    3,857
Notes:
1. The data are taken from the HMCS FamilyMan System and One Performance Truth
database.
2. Figures relate to the number of children subject to each application.
3. Disposals in 2007 and 2008 may relate to applications made in earlier years.
4.      Figures     are     provided       for       Family       Proceedings       Court.
5. For Family Proceedings Courts the earliest available data that can be broken down by
HMCS area is from April 2007. Therefore figures for 2007 relate to data from April 2007 to
December 2007


Date of Proceeding: 18.03.2011
Reference: 525 9-10mc

Answering Department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lead Member: Hague, William
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: European Union Bill



                                              15
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from the opening speech given during t he
European Union Bill's Third Reading debate by the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) on 8 March
2011 .

Mr Hague: This Bill deals with the most important EU decisions of all-those on treaty change.
However, we believe that there is room for further improvement of parliamentary scrutiny and
control over EU decisions, and that is particularly true of justice and home affairs opt-in
decisions. It had become clear to us, and to many others in this House-my hon. Friend the
Member for Hertsmere, in particular, has raised this-that the established system was
inadequate. Therefore, two months ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, with the
support of the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, announced a package of
measures to strengthen parliamentary control so that there will have to be a vote in both
Houses before the Government can decide by 2014 whether to opt in en masse to the
existing EU criminal justice and policing measures adopted under the former third pillar.
There is now also a minimum requirement for a written statement to Parliament on all opt-in
decisions on new EU measures in justice and home affairs. In the case of strong
parliamentary interest in a
18 Mar 2011 : Column 10MC
proposed decision to opt in, under the Bill there will be a debate and vote in both Houses on
the Government's recommended approach.

[Official Report, 8 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 852.]

Letter of correction from Mr William Hague:

An error has been identified in a statement given during my opening speech to the EU Bill's
Third Reading debate on 8 March 2011, following a response to a question from the hon.
Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless).

The correct statement should have been:

Mr Hague: This Bill deals with the most important EU decisions of all-those on treaty change.
However, we believe that there is room for further improvement of parliamentary scrutiny and
control over EU decisions, and that is particularly true of justice and home affairs opt-in
decisions. It had become clear to us, and to many others in this House-my hon. Friend the
Member for Hertsmere, in particular, has raised this-that the established system was
inadequate. Therefore, two months ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, with the
support of the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary, announced a package of
measures to strengthen parliamentary control so that there will have to be a vote in both
Houses before the Government can decide by 2014 whether to opt in en masse to the
existing EU criminal justice and policing measures adopted under the former third pillar.
There is now also a minimum requirement for a written statement to Parliament on all opt-in
decisions on new EU measures in justice and home affairs. In the case of strong
parliamentary interest in a proposed decision to opt in, there will be a debate and vote in both
Houses on the Government's recommended approach.




Sub-type: Written


                                              16
Date of Proceeding: 15.03.2011
Reference: 525 c5-8MC
Answering Department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Lead Member: Penrose, John
Counter Member: Barclay, Stephen
Other Members:
Title: Departmental Expenditure
Description/Summary: Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics,
Media and Sport what expenditure (a) his Department and (b) each public body sponsored
by his Department incurred on engaging external audit services in each of the last three
years; and to which service providers such payments were made in each year. [43759]

[Official Report, 8 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 924-926W.]

Letter of correction from Mr John Penrose:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North East
Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) on 8 March 2011. The incorrect auditor was listed for the
Horserace Betting Levy Board. The auditor was Grant Thornton UK LLP, not the National
Audit Office.

The correct answer should have been:

John Penrose: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is audited by the National Audit
Office (NAO). The NAO charge notional fees for the audit of central Government
Departments and Executive Agencies. There is therefore no expenditure for the external
audit of the Department's Resource Accounts and The Royal Parks Accounts.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has management and control
responsibilities for the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) and the Olympic Lottery
Distribution Fund (OLDF). Both funds are audited by the NAO and charged a hard fee in
cash as set out in the following table.

[Table as originally provided printed - click on Web Location to view]

Most of the Department's arm's length bodies are audited by the NAO and are charged a
hard fee in cash. The two bodies audited by private firms are companies as well as being
charities, and have not been designated for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General
under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.

The following table sets out the bodies, their auditors and the fees charged as disclosed in
the bodies' annual reports and accounts.

[Corrected table printed - click on Web Location to view]




Date of Proceeding: 14.03.2011
Reference: 525 c1-4MC



                                              17
Answering Department: Home Office
Lead Member: Herbert, Nick
Counter Member: Davies, Philip
Other Members:

Title: Home Department Sponsors
Description/Summary: Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
how many regulations sponsored by her Department have been (a) introduced since 18
November 2010 and (b) revoked since 2 February 2011. [44365]

14 Mar 2011 : Column 2MC

[Official Report, 7 March 2011, Vol. 524, c. 878-79W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley
(Philip Davies) on 7 March 2011.

The answer contained two typographical errors: in the first table the transposition of the
words ‘Accession (Immigration’ and an incorrect S.I. number, and in the second table the
omission of a reference to the revoked regulation 3 of S.I. 2009/3136.

The full answer given was as follows:

Nick Herbert: The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations have been made
by the Department on or after 18 November 2010.

S.I. No. S.I. Title Made date
2010 No. 2807
The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010
 21 November 2010

2010 No. 2826
The Police Authority (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2010
 24 November 2010

2010 No. 2851
The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and permitted temporary activities) (Forms and
notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
 29 November 2010

2010 No. 2958
The Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
 13 December 2010

2010 No. 3018
The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Exemption) (Aviation Security) Regulations 2010
 20 December 2010



                                             18
2010 No. 3030
The Police Authority (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2010
 21 December 2010

2011 No. 230
The Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2011
 4 February 2011

2011 No. 300
The Police Act 1996 (Equipment) Regulations 2011
 9 February 2011

2011 No. 448
The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2011
 18 February 2011

2011 No. 544
The Immigration (Accession and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and
Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011
 24 February 2011


The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations are revoked by the Department
since 2 February. None of the revocations are yet in force.

(1) Regulations revoked (2) References (3) Extent of revocation (4) Revoking instrument
The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2010
 S.I 2010/1144
 Regulation 3(a)
 S.I 2011/544


The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
S.I. 2006/1003
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5
S.I 2011/544


The Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006
S.I. 2006/3317
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2
S.I 2011/544


The Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
S.I. 2007/475
Regulation 3
S.I 2011/544




                                            19
The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
S.I. 2007/928
The whole Regulations
S.I 2011/544


The Accession (Worker Authorisation and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations
2007
 S.I. 2007/3012
 Regulation 3
 S.I 2011/544


The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009
S.I. 2009/892
The whole Regulations
S.I 2011/544


The Accession (Worker Authorisation and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations
2009
 S.I. 2009/2426
 Regulation 3
 S.I 2011/544


14 Mar 2011 : Column 3MC

The correct answer should have been:

Nick Herbert: The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations have been made
by the Department on or after 18 November 2010:

14 Mar 2011 : Column 4MC

S.I. No. S.I. Title Made Date
2010 No. 2807
The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010
 21 November 2010

2010 No. 2826
The Police Authority (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2010
 24 November 2010

2010 No. 2851
The Licensing Act 2003 (Premises licences and permitted temporary activities) (Forms and
notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
 29 November 2010

2010 No. 2958


                                            20
The Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
13 December 2010

2010 No. 3018
The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Exemption) (Aviation Security) Regulations 2010
 20 December 2010

2010 No. 3030
The Police Authority (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2010
 21 December 2010

2011 No. 230
The Police Federation (Amendment) Regulations 2011
 4 February 2011

2011 No. 300
The Police Act 1996 (Equipment) Regulations 2011
 9 February 2011

2011 No. 448
The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2011
 18 February 2011

20 H No. 544
The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and
Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011
 24 February 2011


The following statutory instruments in the form of regulations are revoked by the department
since 2 February. None of the revocations is yet in force.

(1) Regulations revoked (2) References (3) Extent of revocation (4) Revoking instrument
The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2009
 S.I. 2009/3136
 Regulation 3
 S.I. 2011/448

The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (England, Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2010
S.I 2010/1144
Regulation 3(a)
S.I. 2011/448

The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006
S.I. 2006/1003
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5
S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2006
S.I. 2006/3317


                                            21
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2
S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
S.I. 2007/475
Regulation 3
S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2007
S.I. 2007/928
The whole Regulations.
S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Worker Authorisation and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations
2007
 S.I. 2007/3012
 Regulation 3
 S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009
S.I. 2009/892
The whole Regulations
S.I. 2011/544

The Accession (Worker Authorisation and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations
2009
 S.I. 2009/2426
 Regulation 3
 S.I. 2011/544


Date of Proceeding: 08.03.2011
Reference: 524 c5-6MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Mulholland, Greg
Other Members:

Title: Ministry of Justice Television Licensing
Description/Summary: Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many
people in Leeds North West constituency have been prosecuted for not having a television
licence in the last 12 months. [16068]

[Official Report, 11 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 153W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Leeds North
West (Greg Mulholland) on 11 October 2010. The answer overstated by 80 the number of


                                              22
persons proceeded against for television licence evasion in the West Yorkshire police force
area for 2008.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for the offence of
television licence evasion under the Communications Act 2003, in the West Yorkshire police
force area for 2008 (latest available), was 6,652. Figures are not available at constituency
level so police force area level data have been provided in lieu.


8 Mar 2011 : Column 6MC

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which
they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the
principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same
disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which
the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

Data for 2009 will be published on 21 October 2010. The publication date for 2010 figures
has not been finalised but will be announced on the UK National Statistics release calendar.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Blunt: The number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for the offence of
television licence evasion under the Communications Act 2003, in the West Yorkshire police
force area for 2008 (latest available), was 6,572, Figures are not available at constituency
level so police force area level data have been provided in lieu.

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which
they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the
principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same
disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which
the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

Data for 2009 will be published on 21 October 2010. The publication date for 2010 figures
has not been finalised but will be announced on the UK National Statistics release calendar.




Date of Proceeding: 07.03.2011
Reference: 524 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Webb, Steve
Counter Member: Gilmore, Sheila
Other Members:

Title: Work and Pensions Social Security


                                             23
Description/Summary: The following is the response given by the Minister of State, the hon.
Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) relating to a question from the hon. Member
for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) during the debate on the Draft Social Security Benefits
Uprating Order 2011 on 17 February 2011.

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Will the Government give the House a time scale in
which it will consider these matters to do with CPI? Obviously, council tax also has to be
taken into account.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by
the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is
undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and
consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the
ONS's time scales.

I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the
Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was
showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits
such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI.
Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers' benefits, were the subject of what my notes
call a bewildering fudge-I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers'
benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election-sorry, that
word slipped out again-increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that
would have happened this year in this order. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State says that
we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.

Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today
contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward
7 Mar 2011 : Column 4MC
proposition that, aside from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have
already been explained, the other mainstream social security benefits and statutory
payments will increase by 3.1%, in line with the annual growth in RPI. There will be no
attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5% fudge that we inherited from the previous
Government.

[Official Report, 17 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 1178.]

Letter of correction from Mr Steve Webb:

An error has been identified in the answer given on 17 February 2011. In the third paragraph
of my response I meant to say CPI not RPI.

The correct answer should have been:

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We are, of course, driven by
the Office for National Statistics, so we are not cobbling together our own index. It is
undertaking careful work over the next two years. We will then look at its findings and
consider whether it is appropriate to use a CPIH-type measure. We are governed by the
ONS's time scales.



                                               24
I will comment briefly on benefits for people of working age. Unfortunately, last year the
Government got themselves into a bit of a mess over uprating. As I have said, RPI was
showing negative inflation, mainly as a result of falling mortgage interest. As a result, benefits
such as additional state pensions did not increase at all. They would have done under CPI.
Other benefits, mainly the disability and carers' benefits, were the subject of what my notes
call a bewildering fudge-I think that roughly sums it up. In the end, disability and carers'
benefits last year were increased by 1.5%, but on the proviso that the pre-election-sorry, that
word slipped out again-increase in 2010 would be clawed back in 2011. In other words, that
would have happened this year in this order. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that
we had to decide whether to pick up the ticking time bomb of that 1.5% clawback as well.

Members will be pleased to know that the 2011 uprating order before the House today
contains no such sleight of hand. It is based on the straightforward proposition that, aside
from increases in the basic pension and pension credit that have already been explained, the
other mainstream social security benefits and statutory payments will increase by 3.1%, in
line with the annual growth in CPI. There will be no attempt to recoup the value of the 1.5%
fudge that we inherited from the previous Government.




Date of Proceeding: 01.03.2011
Reference: 524 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Neill, Robert
Counter Member: Hancock, Matthew
Other Members:
Title: Audit Commission: Expenditure
Description/Summary: Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government how much the Audit Commission spent on calls to (a) premium-rate
telephone numbers, (b) directory enquiry services and (c) the speaking clock in the last 36
months for which figures are available. [41008]

[Official Report, 16 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 831-32 W .]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the copy of the Audit Commission letter that was provided with
the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock)
on 16 February 2011. In the table, the figures given for (b) directory inquiry services and (c)
the speaking clock were transposed.

The full answer given was as follows:

Robert Neill: This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I have asked the
chief executive of the Audit Commission to write to my hon. Friend direct.

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 16 February 2011:

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply.


                                               25
The Commission routinely bars premium rate calls for fixed and mobile phones where
technically possible. Some premium rate calls are required for targeted business purposes,
the main one being for postal franking machines (£162 over the three years). The speaking
clock is sometimes used to test lines externally where a guaranteed reply is needed.

For our main offices, all directory enquiry calls are routed to our main provider Cable &
Wireless service as this provides the most effective rate. Mobile phone calls to directory
enquiries and the speaking clock are barred.

The detail of the spending requested is provided in the table below. However, information for
home workers and small office users is excluded, as the detail is not readily accessible from
the service supplier for the total period.

[Table as originally provided printed - click on Web Location to view]

The correct answer should have been:

Robert Neill: This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission and I have asked the
chief executive of the Audit Commission to write to my hon. Friend direct.

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 16 February 2011:

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply.

The Commission routinely bars premium rate calls for fixed and mobile phones where
technically possible. Some premium rate calls are required for targeted business purposes,
the main one being for postal franking machines (£162 over the three years). The speaking
clock is sometimes used to test lines externally where a guaranteed reply is needed.

For our main offices, all directory enquiry calls are routed to our main provider Cable &
Wireless service as this provides the most effective rate. Mobile phone calls to directory
enquiries and the speaking clock are barred.

The detail of the spending requested is provided in the table below. However, information for
home workers and small office users is excluded, as the detail is not readily accessible from
the service supplier for the total period.

[Corrected table printed - click on Web Location to view]




Date of Proceeding: 01.03.2011
Reference: 524 1MC

Answering Department: Department of Energy and Climate Change
Lead Member: Barker, Gregory
Counter Member: Parish, Neil
Other Members:



                                              26
Title: Feed-in Tariff Review
Description/Summary: The following is the answer given by the Minister of State, the hon.
Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) relating to a question from the hon. Member
for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) during Energy and Climate Change Question Time on
10 February 2011.

Neil Parish: I very much welcome the Minister's comments on anaerobic digestion, because I
think we can get a great deal more of it. Can he assure us that feed-in tariffs will be set at a
fair rate? As we push up energy prices to the consumer, we push more people into fuel
poverty. When he tapers the tariffs, will he ensure that hospitals and schools get a fair crack
of the whip?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. We will endeavour to ensure
that we are very fair in the review, and we certainly want to sustain investment in renewables
in schools, hospitals and other community projects that fall above the 40 kW review level. We
also need to ensure that we get value for money for consumers and that we do not offer what
Labour did-an open cheque book approach to the industry.

[Official Report, 10 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 464.]

Letter of correction from Mr Gregory Barker:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 10 February 2011. The answer
made reference to community projects that fall above the 40 kW review level. It should have
said above the 50 kW level.

The correct answer should have been:

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend makes some excellent points. We will endeavour to ensure
that we are very fair in the review, and we certainly want to sustain investment in renewables
in schools, hospitals and other community projects that fall above the 50 kW review level. We
also need to ensure that we get value for money for consumers and that we do not offer what
Labour did-an open cheque book approach to the industry.


Date of Proceeding: 16.02.2011
Reference: 523 c5-6MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Neill, Robert
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Housing: Prices

Description/Summary: Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government what estimate his Department has made of the number of domestic
dwellings valued at £2 million or higher in each (a) local authority, (b) parliamentary
constituency and (c) region. [39167]



                                               27
[Official Report, 10 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 391-92W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for West Suffolk
(Matthew Hancock) on 10 February 2011.


16 Feb 2011 : Column 6MC

The full answer given was as follows.

Robert Neill: The Department has not made an estimate of the number of domestic dwellings
valued at £2 million or higher. This estimate would require figures on the individual value of
all domestic dwellings in each area. Such data are not held by the Department. Estimating
the current capital value of individual domestic dwellings in each area would require a
valuation/revaluation exercise. The Coalition Agreement rules out a domestic revaluation in
this Parliament.

The correct answer should have been:

Robert Neill: The Department has not made an estimate of the number of domestic dwellings
valued at £2 million or higher. This estimate would require figures on the individual value of
all domestic dwellings in each area. Such data are not held by the Department. Estimating
the current capital value of individual domestic dwellings in each area would require a
valuation/revaluation exercise. The Government have ruled out a domestic revaluation in this
Parliament, as outlined in the written ministerial statement of 11 October 2010, Official
Report, column 2WS.




Date of Proceeding: 15.02.2011
Reference: 523 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Treasury
Lead Member: Greening, Justine
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Fuel Costs

Description/Summary: The following is the response given by the Economic Secretary to the
Treasury, the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) relating to a question from the hon.
Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during the debate on Fuel Costs on 7 February
2011.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Lady has been very generous indeed. She asks us to welcome the
actions that the Government have taken in terms of a deficit consolidation plan. I like and
respect her, but I will never welcome a £1.3 billion cut to the Scottish budget this year and a
£3.2 billion cut to the Scottish block over the next four years. That is the wrong thing to do in
terms of stimulating economic growth and growing our way out of the recession. If we could


                                               28
focus on the fuel duty, that would be particularly helpful, unless of course she wants to
devolve the duty to Scotland, in which case I would be absolutely delighted as we could take
all the right decisions.


15 Feb 2011 : Column 4MC

Justine Greening: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Goodison review
and that the Scotland Bill is passing through Parliament right now. We are making some
changes on tax, and I think he will welcome those measures to strengthen the devolution
settlement.

[Official Report, 7 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 57.]

Letter of correction from Ms Justine Greening:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Dundee East
(Stewart Hosie) during a debate on Fuel Costs on 7 February 2011.

The correct answer should have been:

Justine Greening: I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen will be aware of the Calman
Commission and that the Scotland Bill is passing through Parliament right now. We are
making some changes on tax, and I think he will welcome those measures to strengthen the
devolution settlement.
Date of Proceeding: 15.02.2011
Reference: 523 c2MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Neill, Robert
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from a response given by the Under-
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) during the
Second Reading of the Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill on 19 November 2010.

Robert Neill: ...The Fire Kills campaign has for some time conducted high-profile campaigns
promoting smoke alarms and maintenance messages, which have proved very successful.

The English housing survey 2008, published last month, shows ownership of smoke alarms
in all dwellings in England standing at 91%. It is a significant achievement for the Department
for Communities and Local Government and the fire and rescue service that nine of every 10
homes have a smoke alarm installed.

[Official Report, 19 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 1237.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:


                                               29
An error has been identified in an answer given to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)
during the Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill-the Fire Safety (Protection of
Tenants) Bill-on 19 November 2010.

The figure of 91% given for the proportion of dwellings with smoke alarms has subsequently
been revised to 86%.

The correct answer should have been:

Robert Neill: ...The Fire Kills campaign has for some time conducted high-profile campaigns
promoting smoke alarms and maintenance messages, which have proved very successful.

The English housing survey 2008, published last month, shows ownership of smoke alarms
in all dwellings in England standing at 86%. It is a significant achievement for the Department
for Communities and Local Government and the Fire and Rescue Service that almost nine of
every 10 homes have a smoke alarm installed.




Date of Proceeding: 15.02.2011
Reference: 523 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Lead Member: Hayes, John
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Apprentices
Description/Summary: Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,
Innovation and Skills how many people commenced an apprenticeship in (a) 1997 and (b)
May 2010. [13960]

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 671W.]

Letter of correction from Mr John Hayes:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree
(Luciana Berger) on 9 September 2010. The number given for people on apprenticeships in
1996/97 was incorrectly given as 75,000 when it should have been 65,000.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Hayes: The number of apprenticeships in 1996/97 was 75,000 last published in the
Statistical First Release on the 24 October 2002, however these data were calculated on a
different basis and therefore may not be directly comparable with later years.

Table 1 shows the number of apprenticeship starts for England from 2003/04 to 2008/09.
2003/04 is the earliest year for which comparable data are available and 2008/09 is the latest
year for which full-year data are available.



                                              30
Table 1: Apprenticeship programme starts, 2003/04 to 2008/09
Academic year Apprenticeships
2003/04
 193,600

2004/05
 189,000

2005/06
 175,000

2006/07
 184,400

2007/08
 224,800

2008/09
 239,900

Note:
All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.
Source:
Individualised Learner Record




Information on the number of apprenticeship starts is published in a quarterly statistical first
release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 24 June 2010

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Hayes: The number of apprenticeships in 1996/97 was 65,000 last published in the
Statistical First Release on 24 October 2002, however these data were calculated on a
different basis and therefore may not be directly comparable with later years.

Table 1 shows the number of apprenticeship starts for England from 2003/04 to 2008/09.
2003/04 is the earliest year for which comparable data are available and 2008/09 is the latest
year for which full-year data are available.

Table 1: Apprenticeship programme starts, 2003/04 to 2008/09
Academic year Apprenticeships
2003/04
 193,600

2004/05
 189,000



                                                31
15 Feb 2011 : Column 2MC
 2005/06
 175,000

2006/07
 184,400

2007/08
 224,800

2008/09
 239,900

Note:
All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.
Source:
Individualised Learner Record




Information on the number of apprenticeship starts is published in a quarterly statistical first
release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 24 June 2010 at:

http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current




Date of Proceeding: 02.02.2011
Reference: 522 c9-10MC

Answering Department: Cabinet Office
Lead Member: Maude, Francis
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Public Bodies
Description/Summary: The following is the answer given by the Minister for the Cabinet
Office and Paymaster General (Mr Maude) relating to a question from the right hon. Member
for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) during Cabinet Office Question Time on 19 January 2011.

Mr Bradshaw: While "The King's Speech" is rightly being feted all around the world, the right
hon. Gentleman's Government are abolishing the organisations here in Britain that helped to
make that film happen, as part of what even the Conservative-dominated Public
Administration Committee has described as a "botched" bonfire of the quangos. Given that
he cannot even say how much, if anything, this is going to cost, is it not typical of what the
Government are doing in so many areas-ill considered, ill thought through, rushed and
damaging?

Mr Maude: Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The
Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid


                                                32
Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared
to make those decisions and defend them
2 Feb 2011 : Column 10MC
themselves-that is what democratic accountability is about, and that is the primary aim.
However, we will save money. The changes to the public body landscape planned and
announced by the previous Government, of whom the right hon. Gentleman was such a
distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the changes that we are undertaking.
That Government claimed that those changes would save £500 million a year; our changes
are much more radical and will save a great deal more.

[Official Report, 19 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 827.]

Letter of correction from Mr Maude:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 19 January 2011.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Maude: Just to be clear, the purpose of these reforms is to increase accountability. The
Government will not simply create incontinently new independent bodies in order to avoid
Ministers having to make and defend uncomfortable decisions. Ministers should be prepared
to make those decisions and defend them themselves-that is what democratic accountability
is about, and that is the primary aim. However, we will save money. The changes to the
public body landscape planned and announced by the previous Government, of whom the
right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished ornament, were much more minor than the
changes that we are undertaking. That Government claimed that those changes would save
£500 million over three years; our changes are much more radical and will save a great deal
more.




Date of Proceeding: 01.02.2011
Reference: 522 c7-8mc

Answering Department: Department of Health
Lead Member: Burns, Simon
Counter Member: Turner, Andrew
Other Members:
Title: NHS Negligence
Description/Summary: Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much
the NHS has paid to patients in ex-gratia payments to avoid ligation proceedings in each of
the last three years. [33657]

[Official Report, 18 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 732-33W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight
(Mr Turner) on 18 January 2011. Unfortunately two of the figures in the table were incorrect.


                                              33
The answer given was as follows:

Mr Simon Burns: HM Treasury consider ex-gratia payments to be a form of special payment.
HM Treasury's definition includes personal injury claims that are settled out of court.
Information about local ex-gratia payments made by the national health service to patients to
avoid litigation is not held centrally. Local NHS bodies record 'losses and special payments'
in their consolidated accounts and these will include all ex-gratia payments, not just those
paid to patients or to avoid litigation.

The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) records data held centrally specifically on ex-gratia
payments made for clinical, employer and public liability claims settled out of court. As the
NHSLA settles the vast majority of its claims this way, they fall under HM Treasury's
definition of ex-gratia. Data provided by the NHSLA will cover payments to patients, although
some will be made to families/dependants, employees and visitors.

Data on actual payments made each year can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The
NHSLA has therefore supplied data in the following table which shows the total amount of
damages paid on claims settled out of court where the claim was closed between
1 Feb 2011 : Column 8MC
2007-10. It should be noted that some actual payments for these claims may have been
made in earlier years to when the claim was closed.

Corrected Table included


Date of Proceeding: 31.01.2011
Reference: 522 c5-6mc

Answering Department: Department for Education
Lead Member: Gibb, Nick
Counter Member: Nandy, Lisa
Other Members:

Title: Free schools
Description/Summary: Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will put
in place mechanisms for public scrutiny of the financial backing of individuals and
organisations who are involved in setting up free schools. [24812]

[Official Report, 13 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 567W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Gibb:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa
Nandy) on 13 December 2010.

Unfortunately, we incorrectly believed that Academy Trust annual accounts were published
on the Charity Commission's website, when in fact they are published on the Trust's website
and the Companies House website.



                                             34
The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Gibb: Once a Free School proposal is approved to progress to business case and plan
stage, the main elements of the proposal forms will be put on the Department's website. We
will redact personal information to comply with obligations under the Data Protection
31 Jan 2011 : Column 6MC
Act, and other information where we have judged that commercial interests would be
prejudiced should we publish the proposal in full.

The Department will conduct due diligence checks, including financial checks, on companies
and individuals associated with a proposed Free School. The vast majority of proposers to
date are not associated with or supported by third party organisations.

Once a Free School is established, the Academy Trust will be required to publish annual
accounts in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. These accounts will be available on
the Charity Commission website.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Gibb: Once a Free School proposal is approved to progress to business case and plan
stage, the main elements of the proposal forms will be put on the Department's website. We
will redact personal information to comply with obligations under the Data Protection Act, and
other information where we have judged that commercial interests would be prejudiced
should we publish the proposal in full.

The Department will conduct due diligence checks, including financial checks, on companies
and individuals associated with a proposed Free School. The vast majority of proposers to
date are not associated with or supported by third party organisations.

Once a Free School is established, the Academy Trust will be required to file their annual
accounts with the registrar at Companies House (under sections 441-447 of the Companies
Act 2006) and to publish them on the Academy Trust's website.




Date of Proceeding: 27.01.2011
Reference: 522 c4mc

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Stunell, Andrew
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Antisemitism

Description/Summary: Anti-Semitism
The following is an extract from the closing speech by the Under-Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) , in
the Adjournment Debate on Anti-Semitism secured by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John
Mann) on 20 January 2011.


                                             35
Andrew Stunell: ...I know from my previous visits to the area that the security required there
is a shock to all non-Jewish visitors, who expect a primary school to be a primary school,
perhaps not with open access, but certainly with friendly, welcoming access rather than high
fences and armed guards.

[Official Report, 20 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 365WH.]

Letter of correction from Mr Andrew Stunell:

An error has been identified in my closing speech in the Adjournment Debate on Anti-
Semitism on 20 January 2011. The revision is required to avoid the impression that there are
armed guards at Jewish Faith Schools.

The correct answer should have been:

Andrew Stunell: ...I know from my previous visits to the area that the security required there
is a shock to all non-Jewish visitors, who expect a primary school to be a primary school,
perhaps not with open access, but certainly with friendly, welcoming access rather than high
fences and armed by guards.




Date of Proceeding: 27.01.2011
Reference: 522 c3-4mc

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Shapps, Grant
Counter Member: Skinner, Dennis
Other Members:
Title: Council tax
Description/Summary: 27 Jan 2011 : Column 4MC

Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Since Bolsover district council has managed to hold its
council tax steady for a few years, and since none of its executives get the kind of sums that
have been referred to, will the Minister repay the compliment by allowing it to deal with the
108 prefabricated buildings that have been there since the end of the second world war? The
council needs to replace them and pensioners need new accommodation, so will he get the
show on the road?

[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 531.]

Letter of correction from Mr Grant Shapps:

An error has been identified in the oral response given to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr
Skinner) on 17 January 2011. The answer referred to an incorrect funding programme.

The full answer given was as follows:




                                               36
Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he has raised this issue with me before
in the House, that the decent homes programme continues, and last week's settlement, on
top of the spending review, makes it very clear that £2.2 billion is available for decent homes-
which, I understand, subsequent to our previous exchange in the House, his council is in line
for.

The correct answer should have been:

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman knows, because he has raised this issue with me before
in the House, that the affordable housing programme continues, and that £4.5 billion is
available for new affordable housing provision-from which, I understand, subsequent to our
previous exchange in the House, his council is in line for funding.




Date of Proceeding: 27.01.2011
Reference: 522 c3mc

Answering Department: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Lead Member: Vaizey, Edward
Counter Member: Watson, Tom
Other Members:
Title: News International
Description/Summary: Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation
and Skills pursuant to the answer of 14 October 2010, Official Report, column 367W, on
News International, whether (a) he and (b) the Minister for Culture, Communications and
Creative Industries discussed with (i) James Murdoch and (ii) Rebekah Brooks (A) the
Metropolitan Police's investigation on telephone hacking and blagging and (B) News
Corporation's bid for BSkyB; and if he will make a statement. [21844]

[Official Report, 16 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 747W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Edward Vaizey:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for West
Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on 16 November 2010. The short introductory telephone
conversation with Mr James Murdoch took place on 15 June, not 15 July as stated in the
reply.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 4 November 2010]: The Secretary of State for Business
Innovation and Skills had a short introductory telephone conversation with James Murdoch
on 15 July during which the News Corporation bid for BSkyB was raised. They did not
discuss the Metropolitan police's investigation on telephone hacking.

In my role as a joint BIS/DCMS Minister, I met Rebekah Brooks on 12 July. During this
meeting neither News Corporation's bid for BSkyB, nor the Metropolitan police's investigation
on telephone hacking were discussed.



                                              37
The correct answer should have been:

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 4 November 2010]: The Secretary of State for Business
Innovation and Skills had a short introductory telephone conversation with James Murdoch
on 15 June during which the News Corporation bid for BSkyB was raised. They did not
discuss the Metropolitan police's investigation on telephone hacking.

In my role as a joint BIS/DCMS Minister, I met Rebekah Brooks on 12 July. During this
meeting neither News Corporation's bid for BSkyB, nor the Metropolitan police's investigation
on telephone hacking were discussed

Date of Proceeding: 26.01.2011
Reference: 522 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Neill, Robert
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Non-domestic Rates: Empty Property
Description/Summary: Julian Sturdy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government what assessment his Department has made of the likely effect of the
reduction of the empty property rates threshold on the business sector. [33609]

[Official Report, 17 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 503W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for
York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on 17 January.


26 Jan 2011 : Column 2MC

The notice of question received by my Department referred to "business centre sector" but
this was later changed by the Table Office to "business sector". Due to an administrative
error, the notification of change to the text of the question was not correctly dealt with
resulting in an answer being given on the basis of the original text i.e. "business centre
sector".

The full answer given was as follows:

Robert Neill: This Government recognises the problems caused by the previous
Government's reforms of empty property rates.

Our ability to take action on this needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the
targeted support that we have already provided on business rates and the overriding need to
reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit.




                                             38
We therefore have no immediate plans to reverse the reforms, and taking the above matters
into consideration, the empty property rate threshold will revert to £2,600 from 1 April 2011.
We will, however, certainly keep this matter under review.

No assessment has been made of the effect of the reduction of the empty property rates
threshold on the business centre sector.

As I outlined in my written statement of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 61-
62WS, it would cost £400 million to continue with the temporary empty rates measure, which
unfortunately is not fiscally sustainable given the public finances that the new Government
have inherited from the last administration.

The correct answer should have been:

Robert Neill: This Government recognises the problems caused by the previous
Government's reforms of empty property rates.

Our ability to take action on this needs to be balanced against the costs involved, the
targeted support that we have already provided on business rates and the overriding need to
reduce public expenditure and support the economy generally by reducing the deficit.

We therefore have no immediate plans to reverse the reforms, and taking the above matters
into consideration, the empty property rate threshold will revert to £2,600 from 1 April 2011.
We will, however, certainly keep this matter under review.

As I outlined in my written statement of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 61-
62WS, it would cost £400 million to continue with the temporary empty rates measure, which
unfortunately is not fiscally sustainable given the public finances that the new Government
has inherited from the last administration.




Date of Proceeding: 26.01.2011
Reference: 522 c1MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Clarke, Kenneth
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Criminal Proceedings (Information Rights)
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from a speech in debate in the European
Committee B debate on the EU Directive on the Right to Information in Criminal Proceedings
b y the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned
Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on 2 December 2010.

Mr Clarke: On Scotland, it costs the Scots about £500,000. They do not have a letter of rights
at the moment-they will devise their own. It will be in accordance with Scottish law, not



                                             39
English and Welsh law, but they are happy to comply, because their standards are the same
as ours. They will wish to give the same justice to people who appear in Scottish courts.

[Official Report, 2 December 2010, European Committee B, c. 13.]

Letter of correction from Mr Kenneth Clarke:

An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland
(Helen Goodman) about the costs of implementing the directive in Scotland.

The figure given should have been approximately £50,000-which includes written translation
of a new letter of rights but does not include associated costs for training and putting in place
the necessary legislation.




Date of Proceeding: 20.01.2011
Reference: 521 c9-10mc

Answering Department: Department of Health
Lead Member: Burns, Simon
Counter Member: Pugh, John
Other Members:
Title: General Practitioners
Description/Summary: Dr Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of
doctors working in GP practices in England are partners in the practice where they work.
[10450]

[Official Report, 26 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 833W.]


20 Jan 2011 : Column 10MC

Letter of correction from Mr Simon Burns:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Southport
(John Pugh) on 26 July 2010.

The full answer given was follows:

Mr Simon Burns: As at 30 September 2009, there were 35,719 general practitioners (GPs)
(excluding GP registrars and retainers) in England. Of these, 28,607 (79.6%) were partners
in the practice they worked in.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Simon Burns: As at 30 September 2009, there were 35,719 general practitioners (GPs)
(excluding GP registrars and retainers) in England. Of these, 27,613 (76.9%) were partners
in the practice they worked in.



                                               40
Date of Proceeding: 18.01.2011
Reference: 521 c7MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Robathan, Andrew
Counter Member: Evans, Chris
Other Members:

Title: Ex-servicemen: Radiation exposure
Description/Summary: Chris Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what
benchmarking assessment his Department has made of the provisions for nuclear test
veteran compensation under the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. [29013]

[Official Report, 8 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 281W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Andrew Robathan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris
Evans) on 8 December 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Robathan: No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test
participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans
no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The Ministry of Defence also provides pensions automatically to nuclear test veterans who
have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For other cancers,
claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure assessment. In the
US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one time lump sum of
75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Robathan: No benchmarking has taken place.

In the United Kingdom evidence was provided in the National Radiological Protection Board
(NRPB) reports of the three follow-up studies on the health of over 20,000 nuclear test
participants and a matched group of military controls. For the United States atomic veterans
no comparable large scale epidemiological US study was carried out.

The US Department for Veterans Affairs provides pensions automatically to nuclear test
veterans who have one of a list of 22 cancers presumed to be causally linked to service. For
other cancers, claims may be accepted on the basis of calculated radiation exposure



                                             41
assessment. In the US, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) will pay a one
time lump sum of 75,000 US dollars for cancers on their own list.




Date of Proceeding: 18.01.2011
Reference: 521 c8MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Harvey, Nick
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Air Force: Scotland
Description/Summary: Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
much his Department has spent on redevelopment work at each Royal Air Force base in
Scotland in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made of his Department's
likely expenditure on such work in each of the next five years. [30854]

[Official Report, 16 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 891W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Harvey:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Moray
(Angus Robertson) on 16 December 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

Nick Harvey: The expenditure on redevelopment (defined as capital expenditure and minor
new works) for the major RAF stations in the UK since financial year 2006-07 is shown in the
following table:

Expenditure by station
£ million

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
RAF Kinloss
5.3
3.9
1.9
1.8

RAF Leuchars
4.7
4.3
5.6
9.4

RAF Lossiemouth


                                            42
5.6
1.8
4.5
6.1




Information prior to the financial year 2005-06 is not held centrally and could be provided
only at disproportionate cost. Some of the expenditure has been split between individual
financial years on an estimated basis.

The Ministry of Defence is in the process of completing its annual planning round which will
allocate future programme budgets. This is expected to conclude in early 2011.

The correct answer should have been:

Nick Harvey: The expenditure on redevelopment (defined as capital expenditure and minor
new works) for the major RAF stations in the UK since financial year 2006-07 is shown in the
following table:

Expenditure by station
£ million

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
RAF Kinloss
5.3
3.9
1.9
1.8

RAF Leuchars
4.7
24.5
5.6
9.4

RAF Lossiemouth
5.6
1.8
4.5
6.1




Information prior to the financial year 2005-06 is not held centrally and could be provided
only at disproportionate cost. Some of the expenditure has been split between individual
financial years on an estimated basis.

The Ministry of Defence is in the process of completing its annual planning round which will
allocate future programme budgets. This is expected to conclude in early 2011.


                                            43
Date of Proceeding: 12.01.2011
Reference: 521 c6MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Duncan Smith, Iain
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Jobseekers Allowance
Description/Summary: The following is the answer given by the Secretary of State for Work
and Pensions (Mr Duncan Smith) relating to a question from the hon. Member for
Westminster North (Ms Buck) during Work and Pensions Question Time on 10 January
2011.

Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State accept the Office for
Budget Responsibility figures, revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and
Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), that an extra two thirds of a billion pounds will be spent
on housing benefit as a result of rising unemployment over the next four years?

Mr Duncan Smith: The OBR is independent and the Government of course accept what it
publishes as independent figures. We go by what the OBR's figures say. As the hon. Lady
knows, we inherited a financial mess left by the previous Government. What we are doing is
to make sure that we reduce the ballooning cost of, for example, housing benefit that she left
behind-a bill that doubled in the past five years.

[Official Report, 10 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 9.]

Letter of correction from Mr Iain Duncan Smith:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 10 January 2011.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Duncan Smith: The OBR is independent and the Government of course accept what it
publishes as independent figures. We go by what the OBR's figures say. As the hon. Lady
knows, we inherited a financial mess left by the previous Government. What we are doing is
to make sure that we reduce the ballooning cost of, for example, housing benefit that she left
behind-a bill that doubled in the past ten years.


Date of Proceeding: 12.01.2011
Reference: 521 c5MC

Answering Department: Department for International Development
Lead Member: Duncan, Alan
Counter Member:
Other Members:


                                               44
Title: Yemen: Overseas aid
Description/Summary: Jim Shannon: To ask the Secretary of State for International
Development what (a) funds and (b) other resources his Department has allocated to Yemen
in the last 12 months. [30571]

[Official Report, 15 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 776W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Alan Duncan:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Strangford
(Jim Shannon) on 15 December 2010. The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Duncan: The Department for International Development has allocated £50 million of
programme funding for development projects in Yemen for this financial year 2010-11. In
financial year 2009-10 a total of £27 million was disbursed, as reported in "Statistics for
International Development", available on DFID's website.

There are ten international staff and six local staff working full-time on the Yemen
programme.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Duncan: The Department for International Development has allocated £50 million of
programme funding for development projects in Yemen for this financial year 2010-11. In
financial year 2009-10 a total of £29.8 million was disbursed, as reported in "Statistics for
International Development", available on DFID's website.

There are 10 international staff and six local staff working full-time on the Yemen
programme.


Date of Proceeding: 11.01.2011
Reference: 521 c3-4mc

Answering Department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Lead Member: Robertson, Hugh
Counter Member: Mactaggart, Fiona
Other Members:

Title: Olympic Games 2012;Human Trafficking
Description/Summary: Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,
Olympics, Media and Sport what organisations he has consulted to assist him to assess the
risks of people trafficking associated with the London 2012 Olympics; and whether he plans
to take specific steps to reduce that risk. [30812]

[Official Report, 20 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 1056-57W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Hugh Robertson:




                                               45
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Slough
(Fiona Mactaggart) on 20 December 2010. The reference to the Olympic Intelligence Centre
(OIC) being within the Metropolitan police was incorrect.

The full answer given was as follows:

Hugh Robertson: Regular threat briefings take place between the Secretary of State, the
Minister for Sport
11 Jan 2011 : Column 4MC
and the Olympics and the Olympic Intelligence Centre, a dedicated body within the
Metropolitan Police that gathers information from the security services and regional police
forces about potential threats to the games. As part of this the Department have been
informed that we are not currently seeing any evidence of an increase in human trafficking
related to the London 2012 games.

However, we remain vigilant and will be continuously reviewing the threat of human
trafficking. The Government are determined to deter traffickers from exploiting London 2012
and we are building on the considerable expertise the UK has in tackling this issue. Should
the intelligence indicate an increase in trafficking we shall ensure that the appropriate
measures are in place.

The correct answer should have been:

Hugh Robertson: Regular threat briefings take place between the Secretary of State, the
Minister for Sport and the Olympics and the Olympic Intelligence Centre, a body which
provides strategic intelligence assessments of all threats and hazards to the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is staffed by representatives from across the UK
intelligence and law enforcement community. As part of this the Department have been
informed that we are not currently seeing any evidence of an increase in human trafficking
related to the London 2012 games.




Date of Proceeding: 10.01.2011
Reference: 521 c1-2mc

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Neill, Robert
Counter Member: McIntosh, Anne
Other Members:

Title: Flood control; Finance
Description/Summary: Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government what assessment he has made of the effects of the comprehensive
spending review on his Department's budget for flood resilience measures; and if he will
make a statement. [26627]

[Official Report, 3 December 2010, Vol. 519, c. 1057W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill:


                                             46
An error has been identified in the written answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for
Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on 3 December 2010.

The Notice of Question received by my Department referred to "food resilience measures"
but this was later changed by the Table Office to "flood resilience measures". Due to an
administrative error, the notification of change to the text of the question was not correctly
dealt with by my officials resulting in an answer being given on the
10 Jan 2011 : Column 2MC
basis of the original text, i.e. "food resilience measures". I apologise for any inconvenience
caused by this mistake.

The full answer given was as follows:

Robert Neill: The Department for Communities and Local Government does not hold a
budget for food resilience measures because this is a policy responsibility of the Department
of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. DCLG has made no assessment of the effects of
the comprehensive spending review on food resilience measures.

The correct answer should have been:

Robert Neill: The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not hold
a budget for flood resilience measures because this is a policy responsibility of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). DCLG has made no
assessment of the effects of the comprehensive spending review on flood resilience.
However my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
has informed me that DEFRA expects to spend at least £2.1 billion on flooding and coastal
erosion over the next four years. The Department expects the final figure to be an average of
£540 million per year, approximately 8% less than spend by DEFRA over the previous four
years. As a result of this investment, DEFRA expects to deliver better protection to 145,000
households by March 2015




Date of Proceeding: 21.12.2010
Reference: 520 c5-7mc

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Nandy, Lisa
Other Members:

Title: National probation Service;Manpower
Description/Summary: Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many
probation service employees of each grade there were in probation areas on 31 December
(a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008 and (d) 2009; and if he will make a statement. [26594]

[Official Report, 25 N ovember 2010, Vol. 519, c. 456- 5 8 W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:


                                              47
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa
Nandy) on 25 November 2010. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the locally
purchased extract tool not extracting all of the staff in post figures; in Teesside it excluded
one team; in Durham it did not identify when hours of work, and therefore full-time
equivalence (FTE), had changed slightly. Therefore, some of the staff in post figures
provided for Teesside and Durham within the national figures for December 2009 were
incorrect. The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December
2006-2009 are shown in the following table.

The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of
1,339.26 FTE (down 6.3%).
[Inc table]
The correct answer should have been:

Mr Blunt: The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December
2006-09 are shown in the following table.

The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of
1,315.99 FTE (down 6.2%).

[Inc corrected table]


Date of Proceeding: 21.12.2010
Reference: 520 c5mc

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Herbert, Nick
Counter Member: Ainsworth, Bob
Other Members:

Title: Heroin addiction
Description/Summary: Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many of
those serving a prison sentence have been treated for heroin addiction. [25584]

[Official Report, 23 November 2010, Vol. 519, c. 287W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for
Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) on 23 November 2010. Unfortunately, the answer
contained an error relating to the number of heroin users (4,933) that have entered
accredited drug treatment programmes in 2009-10. The full answer given was as follows:

Nick Herbert: Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical
interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,933 heroin users entered
accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.


                                              48
The correct answer should have been:

Nick Herbert: Of those adults remanded or sentenced in 2009-10, 60,067 had clinical
interventions for the management of heroin dependence, and 4,633 heroin users entered
accredited drug treatment programmes in custody in the same period.

National Probation Service: Manpower
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many probation service employees
of each grade there were in probation areas on 31 December (a) 2006, (b) 2007, (c) 2008
and (d) 2009; and if he will make a statement. [26594]

[Official Report, 25 N ovember 2010, Vol. 519, c. 456- 5 8 W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Crispin Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa
Nandy) on 25 November 2010. Unfortunately, there was a problem with the locally
purchased extract tool not extracting all of the staff in post figures; in Teesside it excluded
one team; in Durham it did not identify when hours of work, and therefore full-time
equivalence (FTE), had changed slightly. Therefore, some of the staff in post figures
provided for Teesside and Durham within the national figures for December 2009 were
incorrect. The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The staff in post figures for the probation service by job group at 31 December
2006-2009 are shown in the following table.

The table shows that there was an overall decrease in staff in post over the period of
1,339.26 FTE (down 6.3%).




Date of Proceeding: 21.12.2010
Reference: 520 c7-8mc

Answering Department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lead Member: O'Brien, Stephen
Counter Member: Corbyn, Jeremy
Other Members:

Title: Western Sahara;Food
Description/Summary: Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for International
Development (1) what assessment he has made of (a) the food security situation in Western
Sahara and (b) the implication for food security in that country of the arrival of recent settlers;
[30062]

(2) how much his Department spent on agricultural development in Western Sahara in each
of the last five years; and what proportion of that expenditure was in respect of the (a)
Saharawi population and (b) Moroccan settlers; [30063]



                                                49
21 Dec 2010 : Column 8MC

(3) how much his Department spent on emergency food aid in Western Sahara in each of the
last five years; and what proportion of that expenditure was in respect of the (a) Saharawi
population and (b) Moroccan settlers. [30064]

[Official Report, 13 December 2010, Vol. 520, c. 447W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Stephen O'Brien:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Islington
North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 13 December 2010. The full answer given was as follows:

Mr O'Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not have a bilateral
aid programme in Western Sahara and has not provided direct emergency funds to the
country in the last five years. We support Western Sahara through our share of the budget of
the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). ECHO has provided €133 million
in humanitarian aid to Western Sahara since it was established. DFID monitors all
humanitarian situations on an ongoing basis.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr O'Brien: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not have a bilateral
aid programme in Western Sahara and has not provided direct emergency funds to the
country in the last five years. We support Western Sahara through our share of the budget of
the European Community Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO). ECHO has provided €165 million
in humanitarian aid since it was established. DFID monitors all humanitarian situations on an
ongoing basis.


Date of Proceeding: 13.12.2010
Reference: 520 c1-3mc

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Miller, Maria
Counter Member: Robertson, Laurence
Other Members:
Title: Children maintenance
Description/Summary: Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions how much the Child Support Agency has (a) assessed as being due and (b)
collected in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a
statement. [22664]

[Official Report, 8 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 170-172W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Miller:

An error has been identified in Table 1 of the written answer given to the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on 8 November. The figure for the September 2006 annual


                                                50
assessed amount was incorrectly given as £1,146 million and should have been £1,446
million.


13 Dec 2010 : Column 2MC

The full answer was given as follows:

Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the
child maintenance system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to write to my
hon. Friend with the information requested and I have seen the response.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Maintenance and
Enforcement Commission, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Child
Maintenance Commissioner.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how much the Child Support
Agency has (a) assessed as being due and (b) collected in each of the last five years for
which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [22664]

The attached table provides an estimate of the value of money assessed as being due and
the value of money collected or arranged.

The value of money assessed as being due has been calculated by taking the average
weekly assessment at September each year (excluding nil liability), and multiplying it by the
caseload as at September.

Figures on average weekly assessment and caseload are available within the Child Support
Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics available in the House of Commons library or online
at

http://www.childmaintenance.org/en/publications/statistics.html

[Corrected table included]


Date of Proceeding: 13.12.2010
Reference: 520 c3mc

Answering Department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lead Member: Lidington, David
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Ratification of Treaties)
Description/Summary: The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Part 2 also requires the
Minister, if the "alternative procedure" in clause 23 is being used in exceptional
circumstances, to lay a statement giving reasons.


                                             51
[Official Report, 11 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 22-23WS.]

Letter of correction from Mr David Lidington :

An error has been identified in the written statement that I made on 11 November 2010. The
penultimate paragraph stated:

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the
"alternative procedure" in clause 23 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a
statement giving reasons.

The correct statement should have been:

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Part 2 also requires the Minister, if the
"alternative procedure" in section 22 is being used in exceptional circumstances, to lay a
statement giving reasons.




Date of Proceeding: 12.11.2010
Reference: 518 c3MC

Answering Department: House of Commons Commission
Lead Member: Bell, Stuart
Counter Member: Whittingdale, John
Other Members:
Title: House of Commons commission Accommodation
Description/Summary: Mr Whittingdale: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough,
representing the House of Commons Commission, which posts in the House of Commons
Service entitle the holder to accommodation (a) in the gift of the House Service and (b) paid
for from the public purse; and what the address is of each property owned by the House
Service which is put at the disposal of such staff. [20072]

[Official Report, 1 November 2010, Vol. 517, c. 495W.]

Letter of correction from Sir Stuart Bell:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr
Whittingdale) on 1 November 2010. The full answer given was as follows:

Sir Stuart Bell: The following positions in the House entitle the holder to accommodation:
Clerk of the House, Serjeant at Arms, Speaker's Secretary, Head Office Keeper and two
Senior Office Keepers. Sleeping facilities are provided for the Deputy Serjeant at Arms,
Assistant Serjeant at Arms, Clerk Assistant, Clerk of Committees and Clerk of Legislation,
reflecting their particular need to be available on the parliamentary estate over prolonged
periods and at unpredictable times. The addresses of the accommodation are: 2 Parliament
street, 3 Parliament street, 2a Canon row, 2b Canon row, 4 Canon row, 102 Rochester row
and 22 John Islip street. The sleeping facilities are also used by other staff when there is a
need to do so.


                                                 52
The list of officials who are provided with sleeping facilities should have included the
Assistant Secretary to the Speaker and the Speaker's Trainbearer, and the addresses of that
accommodation should have included the Palace of Westminster.




Date of Proceeding: 11.11.2010
Reference: 518 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Duncan Smith, Iain
Counter Member:
Other Members:
Title: Welfare Reform
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from the oral statement on welfare reform
given by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford
and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) on 11 October 2010.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): We are at a critical
point, with 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, 2 million working-age people claiming
incapacity benefit, of whom 900,000-just
11 Nov 2010 : Column 2MC
under 1 million-have been claiming for an entire decade, and a system that has left Britain
with the highest rate of jobless households in Europe.

[Official Report, 11 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 34.]

Letter of correction from Mr Duncan Smith:

An error has been identified in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph of the oral statement
of 11 October.

The correct sentence should have been:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith): We are at a critical
point, with 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, 2 million working-age people claiming
incapacity benefit, of whom 900,000-just under 1 million-have been claiming for an entire
decade, and a system that has left Britain with one of the highest rates of jobless households
in Europe's major economies.




Date of Proceeding: 02.11.2010
Reference: 517 c9-10mc

Answering Department: Leader of the House of Commons
Lead Member: Young, George
Counter Member: Sheerman, Barry
Other Members:


                                               53
Title: Business of the House Spending on Universities and Student Support
Description/Summary: 2 Nov 2010 : Column 10MC

Sir George Young: The Government will be spending some £90 million on universities and
student support this year.

[Official Report, 14 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 493.]

Letter of correction from Sir George Young:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 14 October 2010.

The correct answer should have been:

Sir George Young: The Government will be spending some £19 billion on universities and
student support this year.




Date of Proceeding: 28.10.2010
Reference: 517 c7-8mc

Answering Department: Home Office
Lead Member: Herbert, Nick
Counter Member: Freer, Mike
Other Members:

Title: Departmental Press
Description/Summary: Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
how much her Department spent on newspapers, periodicals and trade profession
magazines in each year since 1997. [16227]

[Official Report, 11 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 188-189W.]

Letter of correction from Nick Herbert:

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Finchley and
Golders Green (Mike Freer) on 11 October 2010. The year '2010' of the Official Report
reference in the second paragraph should have read '2009'.

The correct answer should have been:

Nick Herbert: The answer to this question is provided in the following table. It covers the
period 1999-2009. Figures before 1999 are not available.

This year we have been able to access more information that has enabled us to provide
more details than we did in answering a similar question answered on 31 March 2009,
Official Report, columns 1075-76W.



                                              54
28 Oct 2010 : Column 8MC

The figures from 2006 onwards are taken from a corporate framework agreement which
gives improved value for money when compared to previous arrangements.

This framework agreement includes figures for the UK Border Agency and it is not possible
to separate out their expenditure from this figure. The other Executive agencies do not yet
use this framework and so are not included.

The figures provided reflect the functions with the Home Office during the listed years.
Machinery of government changes and internal departmental restructuring has led to
changes in the size and functions of the Department. As a consequence direct comparison
year on year is very difficult
[Corrected table included]


Date of Proceeding: 27.10.2010
Reference: 517 c5-6MC

Answering Department: Communities and Local Government
Lead Member: Shapps, Grant
Counter Member: Freer, Mike
Other Members:

Title: Housing
Description/Summary: Housing

The following is the answer given by the Minister for Housing and Local Government , the
right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) , relating to questions from the right
hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member s for Finchley and Golders
Green (Mike Freer) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) during Communities and
Local Government Question Time on 21 October 2010.

Grant Shapps: Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing,
and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing
waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was
only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable
rent,
27 Oct 2010 : Column 6MC
which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable option,
and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will go into
providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a Government
who produced only a 14,000 net gain in affordable homes during a 13-year period in office.

[Official Report, 21 October 2010, Vol. 516, c. 1113.]

Letter of correction from Grant Shapps:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 21 October 2010.


                                              55
The correct answer should have been:

Grant Shapps: Absolutely. Until now there has been only one way to get into social housing,
and for most people that way has not led to their getting a social home. That is why housing
waiting lists doubled under the last Government from 1 million to nearly 2 million. There was
only a single offer, and not enough homes were being built. We have introduced affordable
rent, which means that rents can be up to 80% of the market rent. That is a more viable
option, and it means that less money can produce more homes and that new investment will
go into providing homes for the most needy in society, who were so badly let down by a
Government who produced only a 40,000 net loss in affordable homes during a 13-year
period in office.


Date of Proceeding: 26.10.2010
Reference: 517 c1-4MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Blunt, Crispin
Counter Member: Brake, Tom
Other Members:

Title: Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre
Description/Summary: Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what (a) injuries
and (b) injuries requiring external medical treatment were sustained during restraint incidents
on girls held in Medway secure training centre in each month since 1998. [14231]

[Official Report, 14 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 983-984W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Blunt:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 14 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Blunt: The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each
category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains
where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include
cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health
professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff
member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment


                                              56
This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs.
Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other
establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the
more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones,
operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been
restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of
restraint.

The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from
2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload
statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large
scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and
may be subject to change over time.

Number of injuries sustained during restraint incidents by severity of injury

 Minor injury-requiring medical treatment Serious injury-requiring hospital treatment
[table given]
The correct answer should have been:

Mr Blunt: The YJB has collected data since April 2007 showing the number of injuries in each
category, but this data is not broken down by gender.

The definitions for these categories are:

Minor injury requiring medical treatment

This includes cuts, scratches, grazes, blood noses, concussion, serious bruising and sprains
where medical treatment is given by a member of staff or a nurse. Treatment could include
cleaning and dressing wounds, providing pain relief, and monitoring symptoms by a health
professional (e.g. in relation to concussion). This includes first aid administered by a staff
member.

Serious injury requiring hospital treatment

This includes serious cuts, fractures, loss of consciousness and damage to internal organs.
Where 24-hour health care is available the young person may remain onsite. At other
establishments, the young person will be taken to a local hospital. Treatment will reflect the
more serious nature of the injuries sustained and may include stitches, re-setting bones,
operations and providing overnight observation.

It is currently a contractual requirement for any young person within an STC who has been
restrained to be visited by a registered nurse within thirty minutes following the use of
restraint.



                                               57
The latest data available is for 2008-09 and is provided in the table as follows. The data from
2009-10 will be available following the publication of the 2009-10 annual YJB Workload
statistics.

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large
scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing and
may be subject to change over time.
[Corrected table given]


Date of Proceeding: 20.10.2010
Reference: 516 c7-8MC

Answering Department: Cabinet Office
Lead Member: Harper, Mark
Counter Member: Mactaggart, Fiona
Other Members:

Title: Cabinet Office
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from the speeches of the hon. Member for
Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon.
Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) in debate on Second Reading of the Parliamentary
Voting System and Constituencies Bill:

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): Let me say that the ward does not send Labour councillors
to the borough; it elects Liberals, so no particular borough advantage was involved.
However, the change respected the views of people about their communities. The real
problem with the latter part of the Bill is that it does not do that. It specifically says that unitary
authority boundaries-and all the authorities in Berkshire are unitary authorities-shall not be
counted as local authority boundaries, so they
20 Oct 2010 : Column 8MC
are absolutely irrelevant. It also says that inconvenience to voters that comes out of the first
boundary review shall be discounted by the Boundary Commission.

[Official Report, 6 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 115.]

Mr Harper: I can assure the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) that the reference in
the Bill to "counties", which she discussed, does include unitary authorities. So the Boundary
Commission for England will be able to take into account the boundaries of all the unitary
authorities in Berkshire as it draws up new constituency boundaries, subject to the issues
relating to parity.

[Official Report, 6 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 129.]

Letter of correction from Mark Harper:

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona
Mactaggart) on Second Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
on 6 September 2010.



                                                  58
The correct response should have been: "the reference in the Bill to "counties" does include
unitary authorities but not those of Berkshire."




Date of Proceeding: 13.10.2010
Reference: 516 c5-6MC

Answering Department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Lead Member: Lidington, David
Counter Member: Goldsmith, Zac
Other Members:

Title: Departmental Secondment
Description/Summary: Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants from each Government Department are on
secondment to EU institutions. [9281]

[Official Report, 27 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 967W.]

Letter of correction from Mr Lidington:

Errors have since been identified with the figures in my written answer to my hon. Friend the
Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on 27 July 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mr Lidington: There are approximately 110 British civil servants on secondment to the EU
institutions.


13 Oct 2010 : Column 6MC

The largest groups are from the following Departments:

Department for International Development: 19

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: 10

Department for Transport: 16

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: nine

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: six

Her Majesty's Treasury: six

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: six.

The correct answer should have been:


                                              59
Mr Lidington: There are approximately 108 British civil servants on secondment to the EU
institutions.

The largest groups are from the following Departments:

Department for International Development: 17

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills: nine

Department for Transport: nine

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: seven

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs: six

Her Majesty's Treasury: six

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: six.




Date of Proceeding: 12.10.2010
Reference: 516 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Leader of the House of Commons
Lead Member: Young, George
Counter Member: Chishti, Rehman
Other Members:

Title: Short Money
Description/Summary: Rehman Chishti: To ask the Leader of the House what formula is
used for calculating Short money; when that formula was set; and what mechanism is used
to monitor the usage of allocated funds. [14126]

[Official Report, 13 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 743-44W.]

Letter of correction from Sir George Young:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Gillingham
and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on 13 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

Sir George Young: For 2010-11, the formula used to calculate each Opposition party's Short
money funding is: £14,351 multiplied by the number of seats won by a party's candidates at
the general election; plus £27.99 multiplied by one two hundredth of the number of votes cast
at the election. The formula was set by a
12 Oct 2010 : Column 4MC



                                              60
resolution of the House of 26 May 1999 and has been uprated by increases in the retail
prices index since then.

Each Opposition party that receives Short money is required to submit a report from an
independent professional auditor, after the end of each financial year, that all the expenses
for which the party received financial assistance under the terms of the resolution were
incurred exclusively in connection with the party's parliamentary business. The relevant
criteria are set out in notes provided to the auditors.

The correct answer should have been:

Sir George Young: For 2010-11 the formula used to calculate each Opposition party's Short
money funding is: £14,351 multiplied by the number of seats won by a party's candidates at
the general election; plus £28.66 multiplied by one two hundredth of the number of votes cast
at the election. The formula was set by a resolution of the House of 26 May 1999 and has
been uprated by increases in the retail prices index since then.

Each Opposition party that receives Short money is required to submit a report from an
independent professional auditor, after the end of each financial year, that all the expenses
for which the party received financial assistance under the terms of the resolution were
incurred exclusively in connection with the party's parliamentary business. The relevant
criteria are set out in notes provided to the auditors.




Date of Proceeding: 11.10.2010
Reference: 516 c1-2MC; 516 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Luff, Peter
Counter Member: Woodcock, John
Other Members:

Title: AWE: Manpower
Description/Summary: 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. [14333]

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 621W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Barrow and
Furness (John Woodcock) on 9 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

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.


                                             61
In addition some 2,000 staff are employed by contractors at these sites.

The correct answer should have been:

Peter Luff: AWE plc employs 4,230 staff at the Aldermaston site and 340 staff at the
Burghfield site.
11 Oct 2010 : Column 2MC
These numbers are full-time equivalent staff employed on 27 August 2010 and are rounded
to the nearest 10.

In addition some 2,000 staff are employed by contractors at these sites


Date of Proceeding: 11.10.2010
Reference: 516 c1-2MC; 516 c2MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Luff, Peter
Counter Member: Lucas, Caroline
Other Members:
Title: AWE Aldermaston : Fires
Description/Summary: 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. [13469]

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 624W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton,
Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 9 September 2010. The date for the false alarm event in March
2006 should have been the 12th, not the 19th.

The full answer given was as follows:

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:

Date RBFRS involvement Event
3 August 2010
 Attendance
 Fire in explosives facility

9 January 2009
 Attendance


                                             62
Welding steel frame caused adjacent timber cladding and wall insulation fire

20 July 2007
 Attendance
 Pumping of flood water from medical building

17 October 2006
 Attendance
 High voltage equipment smoking and smell of burning

22 July 2006
 Stand-by
 Vehicle fire

29 June 2006
 Stand-by
 Small fire in a container during decommissioning operations

19 March 2006
 Stand-by
 False alarm




The correct answer should have been:

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:

Date RBFRS involvement Event
3 August 2010
 Attendance
 Fire in explosives facility

9 January 2009
 Attendance
Welding steel frame caused adjacent timber cladding and wall insulation fire

20 July 2007
 Attendance
 Pumping of flood water from medical building

17 October 2006
 Attendance
 High voltage equipment smoking and smell of burning

22 July 2006


                                             63
Stand-by
Vehicle fire

29 June 2006
 Stand-by
 Small fire in a container during decommissioning operations

12 March 2006
 Stand-by
 False alarm




Date of Proceeding: 16.09.2010
Reference: 515 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Robathan, Andrew
Counter Member: Soames, Nicholas
Other Members:

Title: Military Bases
Description/Summary: Military Bases
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence how many permanent UK military
headquarters there are; where each is located; who has
command at each such headquarters; and what the
staff is of each. [8815]
[Official Report, 20 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 182-84.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Robathan:
Errors have been identified in the written answer
given to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas
Soames) on 20 July 2010.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Robathan [holding answer 15 July 2010]: There
are five permanent military headquarters (HQ) in the
UK. Details of the location, who has command and
staff employed at each are shown in the following table:
Of which:
Military HQ Location Commanded by
Number
of staff Military Civilian
Ministry of Defence (MOD)—
Head Office
MODMain Building London Secretary of State for Defence 2,920 1,070 1,850
Navy—HQ Navy Command Portsmouth Commander in Chief Fleet 1,420 863 557
Army—HQ Land Forces Andover Commander in Chief Land


                                             64
Forces
2,077 1,075 1,002
RAF—HQ Air Command High Wycombe Commander in Chief Air 2,099 1,476 623
Permanent Joint HQ—Operations
Joint HQ
Northwood Chief of Joint Operations 593 476 117
The answer should have been:
Mr Robathan: The information is provided in the
following table.
Of which:
Military HQ Location Commanded by
Number
of staff Military Civilian
Ministry of Defence (MOD)—
Head Office
MODMain Building London Secretary of State for Defence 2,920 1,070 1,850
Navy—HQ Navy Command Portsmouth Commander in Chief Fleet 11,420 863 557
Army—HQ Land Forces Andover Commander in Chief Land
Forces
1,988 986 1,002
RAF—HQ Air Command High Wycombe Commander in Chief Air 11,856 1,233 623
Permanent Joint HQ—Operations
Joint HQ
Northwood Chief of Joint Operations 593 476 117
1 Figures include staff co-located into the Navy and Air Command HQs, covering a number
of functions, particularly in the personnel and
training areas.


Date of Proceeding: 16.09.2010
Reference: 515 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Office of the Secretary of State for Wales
Lead Member: Jones, David
Counter Member: Evans, Chris
Other Members:
Title: Expenditure Reductions: Policing
Description/Summary: Expenditure Reductions: Policing
9. Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): What
discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for
the Home Department on the effects on front-line
policing in Wales of planned expenditure reductions.
[13141]
Mr Jones: The question of funding for the police is a
matter that will have to await the comprehensive spending
review, but I am heartened by the comments of the
National Audit Office and theWales Audit Office about
how it should be possible to effect reductions of £1 billion
without any effect at all on front-line policing.
[Official Report, 8 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 310.]


                                            65
Letter of correction form David Jones:
An error has been identified in the response provided
to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) during
Welsh oral questions on 8 September 2010.
The Minister intended to refer to a report by the
Wales Audit Office, the Audit Commission and Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Policing. The Minister did
not intend to refer to the National Audit Office in his
response.


Date of Proceeding: 06.09.2010
Reference: 515 c2MC

Answering Department: Department for Work and Pensions
Lead Member: Webb, Steve
Counter Member: McGuire, Anne
Other Members:

Title: Pensions: Index Linking
Description/Summary: Mrs McGuire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
what estimate he has made of the change in expenditure in the Financial Assistance Scheme
attributable to the use of the consumer prices index for pension indexation in the next five
years. [11057]

[Official Report, 27 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 1154-155W.]

Letter of correction from Steve Webb:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Stirling
(Mrs McGuire) in response to Named Day PQ 10/11057 on 27 July 2010.

The answer given was as follows (error indicated by italics):

Steve Webb: The figures show the estimated annual reduction in Financial Assistance
Scheme expenditure as a result of switching the indexation of payments in payment and
revaluation of payments in deferment from RPI to CPI from 2011.

Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £100,000. The reduction
represents 0.1% of estimated total FAS spending in each year.


 CPI from 2011 (£)
2011
 100,000

2012
 300,000

2013


                                              66
700,000

2014
 1,300,000

2015
 2,200,000




Data and modelling limitations mean it is not possible to provide details of the saving for
indexation only. However we estimate that the saving relating to revaluation would be greater
than that for indexation.

The correct answer should have been (correction indicated by italics):

Steve Webb: The figures show the estimated annual reduction in Financial Assistance
Scheme expenditure as a result of switching the indexation of payments in payment and
revaluation of payments in deferment from RPI to CPI from 2011.

Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £100,000. The reduction
represents 0.1% of estimated total FAS spending in the first year.


 CPI from 2011 (£)
2011
 100,000

2012
 300,000

2013
 700,000

2014
 1,300,000

2015
 2,200,000




Data and modelling limitations mean it is not possible to provide details of the saving for
indexation only. However we estimate that the saving relating to revaluation would be greater
than that for indexation.

Date of Proceeding: 06.09.2010
Reference: 515 c1MC

Answering Department: Minister for Women and Equality


                                             67
Lead Member: Miller, Maria
Counter Member: Ellison, Jane
Other Members: Lefroy, Jeremy

Title: Access to Work
Description/Summary: 8. Jane Ellison: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she
will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on proposals to
change the access to work programme to increase opportunities for disabled people to find
employment. [10309]

10. Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she will hold discussions
with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on proposals to change the access to
work programme to increase opportunities for disabled people to find employment. [10311]

[Official Report, 26 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 610W.]

Letter of correction from Maria Miller:

Errors have been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane
Ellison) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on 26 July 2010. The words 'The
Government Equalities Office is' in the second paragraph should be replaced with 'We are'.

The answer given was as follows:

Maria Miller [holding answer 22 July 2010]: I have been asked to reply.

The Government are committed to ensuring disabled people are given the support they need
to get a job and remain in employment.

The coalition agreement made a commitment on Access to Work. The Government
Equalities Office is developing plans for delivering this commitment and further details will be
announced in due course.

The correct answer should have been:

Maria Miller [holding answer 22 July 2010]: I have been asked to reply.

The Government are committed to ensuring disabled people are given the support they need
to get a job and remain in employment.

The coalition agreement made a commitment on Access to Work. We are developing plans
for delivering this commitment and further details will be announced in due course.




Date of Proceeding: 27.07.2010
Reference: 514 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Northern Ireland Office
Lead Member: Paterson, Owen


                                              68
Counter Member: Evans, Graham

Title: Departmental Official Hospitality
Description/Summary: Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
how much (a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent
on hospitality in each year since 1997. [7451]

Mr Paterson: On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for
policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the
Department as it is now configured are not available.

Since 12 April the Department has spent £234 on hospitality.

The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no
cost on hospitality since 12 April.

[Official Report, 19 July 2010, Vol. 514, c. 5W.]


27 July 2010 : Column 4MC

Letter of correction from Mr. Paterson:

An error has been identified in relation to the answer given to the hon. Member for Weaver
Vale (Graham Evans) on 19 July 2010, Official Report, column 5W, on hospitality
expenditure.

It has come to our attention that the figure of £234 was not up to date at the time of
answering this Question as some relevant July costs had not been centrally recorded at the
time the Question was answered. The updated figure should have been £438.63.

The corrected full answer should now read:

Mr Paterson: On 12 April 2010 the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) transferred responsibility for
policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Comparable figures for the
Department as it is now configured are not available.

Since 12 April the Department has spent £438.63 on hospitality.

The NIO has no agencies. It has one non-departmental public body which has incurred no
cost on hospitality since 12 April.




Date of Proceeding: 19.07.2010
Reference: 514 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Defence
Lead Member: Fox, Liam


                                               69
Counter Member: Clark, Katy
Other Members:
Title: Trident
Description/Summary: Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Given that Trident is
costing us perhaps £1 billion or£2 billion every year, and an estimated £96 billion over its
entire lifetime, does the Minister agree that we should listen to the military figures who are
increasingly saying that it is not necessary and counting it as something to be considered in
the comprehensive spending review?

Dr Fox: Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a
wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in
2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go
forward with a nuclear deterrent. We
19 July 2010 : Column 2MC
know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do
not know what will happen between now and 2015-the time scale for the Trident replacement
programme-and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain's defences.

[Official Report, 5 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 3.]

Letter of correction from Dr Liam Fox:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire
and Arran (Katy Clark) on 5 July 2010.

The correct answer should have been:

Dr Fox: Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a
wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in
2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go
forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying
to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2050-the
time scale for the Trident replacement programme-and we cannot play fast and loose with
Britain's defences.




Date of Proceeding: 06.07.2010
Reference: 513 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Department for Education
Lead Member: Gibb, Nick
Counter Member: Robertson, John
Other Members:

Title: Education maintenance allowance
Description/Summary: John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what
plans he has for the future of education maintenance allowance payments. [871]

[Official Report, 14 June 2010, Vol. 511, c. 307W.]


                                                  70
6 July 2010 : Column 2MC

Mr Gibb [holding answer 7 June 2010]: The Government are committed to retaining the
education maintenance allowance (EMA). The budget for 2010-11 is £564 million, enabling
young people aged 16 to 19 in England who meet residency criteria and have a bank
account to receive EMA payments if their household income is under £30,801 (based on
evidence from the last full financial year).

Letter of correction from Mr Gibb:

An error has been identified in the written answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North
West (John Robertson) on 14 June 2010.

Unfortunately, the last line of the reply as published contained a typographical error and the
household income threshold amount should have read £30,810.

The correct response should have been:

Mr Gibb [holding answer 7 June 2010]: The Government are committed to retaining the
education maintenance allowance (EMA). The budget for 2010-11 is £564 million, enabling
young people aged 16 to 19 in England who meet residency criteria and have a bank
account to receive EMA payments if their household income is under £30,810 (based on
evidence from the last full financial year).

The Minister is writing to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West to explain this error and
notify him of the correction.




Date of Proceeding: 06.07.2010
Reference: 513 c1MC

Answering Department: Department for International Development
Lead Member: Duncan, Alan
Counter Member:
Other Members:

Title: Global Poverty
Description/Summary: The following is an extract from the speech of the Minister of State,
Department for International Development during the Global Poverty debate:

"Additional climate finance, as the previous Government made clear, will come from the
existing aid budget."

[Official Report, 1 July 2010, Vol. 512, c. 1103-1104.]

Letter of correction from Mr Alan Duncan :



                                               71
The Minister of State for International Development made a small error during his closing
remarks in the Global Poverty Debate on 1 July 2010.

He said "Additional climate finance, as the previous Government made clear, will come from
the existing aid budget".

He meant to say "UK Fast Start climate finance, as the previous Government made clear, will
come from the aid budget."




Date of Proceeding: 29.06.2010
Reference: 512 c3-4MC

Answering Department: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Lead Member: Prisk, Mark
Counter Member: Pincher, Christopher
Other Members:

Title: Advantage West Midlands
Description/Summary: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how
many people are employed by Advantage West Midlands; how many people compose the
non-executive Board of Advantage West Midlands; and what the total cost to the public purse
of payments to (a) employees and (b) Board members is to date. [2852]

[Official Report, 17 June 2010, Vol. 511, c. 530W.]

Mr Prisk: The following tables show:

(a) Number of and cost of employees

Number/£
Number of employees headcount (full-time equivalent (322))
346

Cost (£)
18,358,000




Staff numbers are as at the snapshot reference date 31 March 2010 and cost is for the
financial year 2009-10. Costs for payroll employees are defined as pay bill i.e. salary,
ERNICs and pension; and

(b) Number of and cost of board members


                                             72
Number/£
Number of board members (including chair)
15

Cost (£)
231,412




Board member costs are from the 2008-09 financial year and include chair pension costs and
board travel expenses. Board members now receive a remuneration of £8,666 per annum for
minimum of two days per month with no pension entitlement.


29 Jun 2010 : Column 4MC

The chair receives a remuneration of £81,718 per annum for three days a month and
receives a pension.

Under the RDA Act 1998 an RDA board must have 15 members with the majority being
business positions.

Letter of correction from Mr Mark Prisk:

In my reply of 17 June to the question from the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher
Pincher) I said "The Chair receives a remuneration of £81,718 Per annum for three days a
month and receives a pension." I regret that due to an administrative error this is incorrect
and the answer should have indicated that the Chair receives the same remuneration for
three days a week.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Prisk: The following tables show:

(a) Number of and cost of employees

Number/£
Number of employees headcount (full-time equivalent (322))
346

Cost (£)
18,358,000




Staff numbers are as at the snapshot reference date 31 March 2010 and cost is for the
financial year 2009-10. Costs for payroll employees are defined as pay bill i.e. salary,
ERNICs and pension; and



                                             73
(b) Number of and cost of board members

Number/£
Number of board members (including chair)
15

Cost (£)
231,412




Board member costs are from the 2008-09 financial year and include chair pension costs and
board travel expenses. Board members now receive a remuneration of £8,666 per annum for
minimum of two days per month with no pension entitlement.

The chair receives a remuneration of £81,718 per annum for three days a week and receives
a pension.

Under the RDA Act 1998 an RDA board must have 15 members with the majority being
business positions.




Date of Proceeding: 24.06.2010
Reference: 512 c1-2MC

Answering Department: Ministry of Justice
Lead Member: Clarke, Kenneth
Counter Member: Keeley, Barbara
Other Members:

Title: Justice Topical Questions
Description/Summary: Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): In a recent case, a
Salford man had committed a rape and was bailed, but then committed a further rape, and
the police believe that there are further victims of this man. Can the Secretary of State
explain why the Government have committed in their coalition agreement to extending
anonymity to such defendants before all the evidence is heard? Can he also say who will
now be consulted for that evidence?

[Official Report, 15 June 2010, Vol. 511, c. 735-36.]

Letter of correction from Mr Kenneth Clarke:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Worsley and
Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on 15 June 2010. The answer given was as follows:

Mr Kenneth Clarke: With great respect, I find it very surprising that so many questions are
being raised about a proposition that has been before the House, on and off, for the past 20


                                               74
years and is not easily resolved. We will, of course, look at all arguments, including the
experience of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, but that is only one of the
considerations to be taken into account. There will undoubtedly
24 Jun 2010 : Column 2MC
sometimes be cases where the publication of the name of the accused person gives rise to
other people coming forward with well-founded complaints against that person. We will have
to see whether there is any evidence that such cases are a significant proportion of the total
cases of rape. We shall also have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a
woman can make an anonymous complaint, the man can eventually be convicted, after
going through a long and probably rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her
anonymity as she walks away, with her ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the
consequences.

The correct answer should have been:

Mr Kenneth Clarke: With great respect, I find it very surprising that so many questions are
being raised about a proposition that has been before the House, on and off, for the past 20
years and is not easily resolved. We will, of course, look at all arguments, including the
experience of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, but that is only one of the
considerations to be taken into account. There will undoubtedly sometimes be cases where
the publication of the name of the accused person gives rise to other people coming forward
with well-founded complaints against that person. We will have to see whether there is any
evidence that such cases are a significant proportion of the total cases of rape. We shall also
have to consider the arguments on the other side, where a woman can make an anonymous
complaint, the man can eventually be acquitted, after going through a long and probably
rather destructive ordeal, and the woman retains her anonymity as she walks away, with her
ex-boyfriend or ex-husband left to live with the consequences.




Date of Proceeding: 09.06.2010
Reference: 511 c1-6MC

Answering Department: Department of Energy and Climate Change
Lead Member: Hendry, Charles
Counter Member: Mann, John
Other Members:

Title: Industrial diseases: Compensation
Description/Summary: John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change how many claims for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease have been settled in (i) Bassetlaw, (ii) Leigh, (iii) Doncaster North, (iv) South Shields
and (v) Morley and Outwood constituency; and how many such claims in each such
constituency were settled by each firm of solicitors. [52]

[Official Report, 2 June 2010, Vol. 510, c. 20W.]

Charles Hendry: The number of claims for vibration white finger (VWF) and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease that have been settled in Bassetlaw, Leigh, Doncaster North,
South Shields and Morley and Rothwell


                                               75
9 Jun 2010 : Column 2MC
constituencies settled by each firm of solicitors is shown in the following tables as at 23 May
2010:

The Department is unable to provide data for Morley and Outwood as this is a new
constituency and the Department does not have a breakdown of these figures.

[See Official Report 511 c1-6MC for table]

Letter of correction from Charles Hendry:

When colleagues were checking Hansard they noticed that the written answer provided to
the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on 2 June 2010, Official Report, column 20W,
did not include all of the data requested on the number of claims for vibration white finger
(VWF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Department had included information
on the number of settlements made in the Morley and Rothwell constituency, but this same
information should have also been provided for the constituencies of Bassetlaw, Leigh,
Doncaster North, South Shields and constituencies settled by each firm of solicitors as
shown in tables as at 23 May 2010: This was an error on the parliamentary unit's part for
which I apologise. Due to the size of all the tables when collated together I am arranging for
this information to be deposited in the Libraries of the House.

The correct answer should have been:

Charles Hendry: I am depositing in the Libraries of the House tables detailing the settlements
made by each firm of solicitors as at 23 May 2010 for claims for vibration white finger (VWF)
and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that have been settled in Bassetlaw, Leigh,
Doncaster North, South Shields and Morley and Rothwell constituencies.

The Department is unable to provide data for Morley and Outwood as this is a new
constituency and the Department does not have a breakdown of these figures.

Headline figures as at 23 May 2010
Constituency Number of settled claims-VWF
Bassetlaw
5,197

Leigh
 705

Doncaster North
3,878

South Shields
1,186

Morley and Rothwell
280

Total


                                              76
11,246


Constituency Number of settled claims-COPD
Bassetlaw
8,951

Leigh
 4,956

Doncaster North
9,632

South Shields
3,016

Morley and Rothwell
1,563

Total
28,118




                                         77

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:5/16/2012
language:English
pages:77
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://
About