| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housing
Mr. Lepper: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to (a) receive and (b) publish the research which he has commissioned into shared ownership schemes for housing. [56151]
Ms Keeble: My Department received on 7 May the draft report of research we commissioned last year to look at the operation and effectiveness of the existing low cost home ownership schemes, including shared ownership. The findings, which will help inform the future direction of the low cost home ownership programme, are now being considered. We expect to publish the report by September 2002.
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 2002, Official Report, column 1162W, on affordable housing, if he will provide the figures for 2001–02. [57027]
Ms Keeble: Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.
Mobile Home Owners
Mrs. Calton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what provisions there are to ensure that mobile home owners are aware that they do not have the same rights for compensation for noise, dust and vibration nuisance following new road construction as conventional dwellings; and what guidance he has issued to public inquiry inspectors for new roads on this subject. [56495]
Mr. Jamieson: Compulsory Purchase and Compensation booklets are published by my Department and made freely available at public exhibitions, inquiries and on request to those whose property may be required or affected by road construction. These booklets point out that those living in mobile homes within 300 metres of a new or altered highway may be eligible, in certain circumstances, to receive a noise payment of up to £1,650 but not to claim compensation under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Inspectors are advised not to hear any evidence about compensation.
16 May 2002 : Column 803W
Road Safety (Children)
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last 10 years for carrying children unprotected in the front or back seats of cars. [56106]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I have been asked to reply.
Information held centrally does not distinguish between the offence of carrying in a motor vehicle a child not wearing a seat belt and the offence of not wearing a seat belt.
Available information is given in the table. As the majority of seat belt offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty notice these are also included, along with the number of written warnings.
| Number of prosecutions | Number of fixed penalties | Written warnings | Total dealt with | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 12,156 | (10)— | (10)— | (10)— |
| 1992 | 11,258 | 102,322 | 3,214 | 116,794 |
| 1993 | 9,687 | 106,153 | 4,839 | 120,679 |
| 1994 | 8,715 | 114,712 | 6,945 | 130,372 |
| 1995 | 8,574 | 126,251 | 8,923 | 143,748 |
| 1996 | 8,530 | 154,345 | 9,312 | 172,187 |
| 1997 | 8,180 | 175,334 | 14,300 | 197,814 |
| 1998 | 8,303 | 193,879 | 10,891 | 213,073 |
| 1999 | 6,874 | 180,698 | 9,205 | 196,777 |
| 2000 | 5,740 | 155,301 | 6,163 | 167,204 |
(9) Offences under sections 14(3), 15(2) and 15(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(10) Not available.
TREASURY
Teenage Pregnancies
Dr. Fox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five years in (a) Lambeth, (b) Southwark and (c) Lewisham. [56937]
Ruth Kelly: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Liam Fox, dated 16 May 2002:
- As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in each of the last five years in (a) Lambeth (b) Southwark and (c) Lewisham. (56937)
- Figures for the latest available five years, 1996–2000, are shown in the table below.
| Lambeth | Lewisham | Southwark | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 374 | 305 | 315 |
| 1997 | 352 | 302 | 284 |
| 1998 | 365 | 319 | 318 |
| 1999 | 361 | 305 | 310 |
| 2000 | 357 | 275 | 314 |
16 May 2002 : Column 804W
National Insurance
Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated additional cost is to (a) Plymouth city council, (b) South Hams district council, (c) Devon county council and (d) Torbay unitary authority in the next financial year as a result of the increase in employer's national insurance contributions announced in the Budget; and what provision will be made to cover the additional costs which will be incurred. [56291]
Dawn Primarolo: It is estimated that the changes to employer NICs announced in the Budget will add around 0.7 per cent. to pay costs on average next year. The cost to the public services will be just over £1 billion which compares with a planned rise in spending on public services of nearly £20 billion. The changes will help to fund improvements to public services and a real terms increase in spending on health over the next five years of over 40 per cent.
I regret that it is not possible to provide reliable sub-regional estimates for the national insurance changes within the disproportionate cost limits.
Mr. Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what he estimates to be the extra revenue generated for the Treasury due to the rise in employer national insurance rates for companies employing fewer than 50 people in each of the next four years; [56173]
- (2) what he estimates to be the extra tax revenue generated in the first year by the rise in national insurance employer contributions to companies employing fewer than (a) 10 and (b) 20 people. [56691]
Dawn Primarolo: I regret that it would be possible to provide an estimate only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Webb: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for the assessment made in para 2.28 of the Taylor report "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System: Number Two" regarding the under-contribution to the NI Fund by the self-employed; what his latest estimate is of that under-contribution; if he will undertake a similar comparison between the contributions paid by married woman at the reduced rate and the benefits to which such women are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [57147]
Ruth Kelly: The latest estimate of the value of the reduction in contributions by the self-employed which is not matched by reduced benefit entitlement is in Inland Revenue Statistics table 1.5, on the Inland Revenue website (www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax–expenditures_g_t05_1.htm).
The value is calculated by estimating the total employee and employer national insurance contributions which would be paid by the self-employed if they were to be subject to Class 1 contributions instead, and comparing this with the estimated total Class 2 and Class 4 contributions actually paid by the self-employed. An adjustment is made to allow for the fact that the self-employed are not eligible for certain contributory benefits, such as contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and the state second pension (or SERPS prior to April 2002).
16 May 2002 : Column 805W
If a similar calculation was performed for married women who have opted to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate it would not show any under-contribution.
Construction Industry
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what centrally set targets are in place for monitoring employment status in the construction industry; and on how many occasions these targets have been met in each year since 1995. [56515]
Dawn Primarolo: The Inland Revenue presently has about 64 Employer Compliance Units nationally. These units are responsible for monitoring compliance by employers and contractors, and they include dedicated employment status teams.
Employer Compliance Units have a range of targets relating to reviews of employers and contractors. Such reviews may or may not include status issues. Status issues arise as a consequence of reviews and as such are not separately targeted.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to monitor the employment status of subcontractors in the construction industry to ensure the status adheres to Inland Revenue regulations when undertaking work on Government contracts. [56516]
Dawn Primarolo: The Inland Revenue monitors the employment status of construction workers involved in Government contracts in the same way as it does in the whole of the rest of the industry, and elsewhere.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |