---

5 Jul 2004 : Column 458W—continued

Shared Ownership Housing

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average price was of a 50 per cent. stake in a (a) one-bed, (b) two-bed and (c) three-bed shared ownership property in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) the East London sub-region, (iii) London and (iv) England in the latest year for which figures are available. [181635]

Keith Hill: The following table shows the average price of a 50 per cent. share in a shared ownership property, broken down by number of bedrooms, in Tower Hamlets, the East London sub-region, London and England in 2003–04.
Shared ownership sales during 2003–04: average price paid for a 50 per cent. stake

	One bedroom		Two bedrooms		Three bedrooms
	Number of sales	Average price paid (£)	Number of sales	Average price paid (£)	Number of sales	Average price paid (£)
Tower Hamlets	7	69,107	5	91,500	2	123,750
East London sub-region 1	27	68,619	120	81,525	39	94,140
London	165	75,751	331	83,582	89	98,932
England	339	64,202	1,420	62,095	682	66,732

Notes:
1. Because the buyer took a 50 per cent. stake, the average price paid by the buyer represents one-half of the market price of the property.
2. The sales included in the above figures comprise the following schemes:
Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership
Shared Ownership for the Elderly
Leasehold Schemes for the Elderly
Ordinary Shared Ownership Schemes
3. East London sub-region 1 is an amalgamation of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Waltham Forest.
Source:
Housing Corporation, CORE Sales.

Telecommunications Masts (Need and Safety Tests) Bill

Mr. Amess: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations have been made to his Department from mobile telephone operators regarding the Telecommunications Masts (Need and Safety Tests) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [182282]

Keith Hill: No representations have been made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister from mobile telephone operators regarding the Telecommunications Masts (Need and Safety Tests) Bill.

Vernacular Design

Mr. Swire: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what (a) discussions he has had with housebuilders and (b) guidelines he has issued on vernacular design. [182053]

Keith Hill: The Government have neither held discussions with housebuilders nor issued guidelines specifically on vernacular design. The Government are strongly in favour of promoting good design for the purpose of creating high quality, well-designed, sustainable places but do not believe that this is better achieved by favouring one architectural style over any other. Government planning policies have for some time emphasised this; and in "By Design" and "Better Places to Live" we have issued good practice guidance on achieving good design.

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also significantly increased sponsorship of the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) which was created in 1999 to champion the cause of better design from £0.5 million in 2002–03 to £17.75 million over the next three years until 2005–06.
 
5 Jul 2004 : Column 459W
 

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Adoption Cases

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many cases in the area of (a) Cumbria county council, (b) Durham county council, (c) Northumberland county council, (d) Hartlepool council, (e) York city council, (f) Middlesbrough council, (g) Stockton council, (h) Sunderland city council, (i) Gateshead borough council, (j) Darlington unitary authority, (k) North Yorkshire county council, (l) Newcastle city council, (m) North Tyneside council, (n) South Tyneside council and (o) Redcar and Cleveland council a decision has been made to (i) authorise and (ii) encourage contact between birth parents and an adopted child following review after the judgment in R v. Cannings. [179916]

Margaret Hodge: Information about the decisions of the named local authorities in relation to their specific cases is not held centrally. Where the courts have previously made adoption orders, local authorities will no longer be exercising parental responsibility in relation to children who were their responsibility prior to the adoption. Thus, they will have no powers in relation to determining what contact should take place between adopted children and their birth parents. While, the courts may have made arrangements about contact between children and their birth parents at the time of the making of an adoption order, the responsibility for contact between adopted children and others then becomes a matter for their adoptive parents.

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children's cases are actively being reviewed following the ministerial announcement of a review on 23 February about the judgment in R v. Cannings in the area of the (a) Cumbria county council, (b) Durham county council, (c) Stockton council, (d) York city council, (e) Hartlepool council, (f) Middlesbrough council, (g) Darlington unitary authority, (h) Gateshead borough council, (i) Sunderland city council, (j) South Tyneside council, (k) North Tyneside county council, (l) Newcastle city council, (m) North Yorkshire county council, (n) Northumberland county council and (o) Redcar and Cleveland council social services department; and by what date the review of all potentially affected cases in Cumbria is expected to be complete in each case. [179917]

Margaret Hodge: In my statement to the House on 23 February 2004, Official Report, column 37, I made clear that I would be issuing guidance to local authorities about the review of cases. On 26 February 2004 I issued Local Authority Circular 2004(5), which asked local authorities to identify relevant cases either within a four-week period, where the cases were currently before the courts, or a 12-week period, where court orders (which were still in place) had already been made. The review period for the former group ended at the end of March 2004, while the review period for the latter group ended at the end of May 2004. Information derived from an ADSS survey of the former group was placed in the House Library on 17 June 2004. A further survey is to be undertaken of the latter group of cases, the results of which will also be placed in the Library. Specific information about individual local authorities is not available in relation to either survey.
 
5 Jul 2004 : Column 460W
 

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many cases in the area of (a) Cumbria county council, (b) Durham county council, (c) Northumberland county council, (d) Stockton council, (e) Hartlepool council, (f) York city council, (g) Sunderland city council, (h) Gateshead borough council, (i) Middlesbrough borough council, (j) Darlington unitary authority, (k) North Yorkshire county council, (l) Redcar and Cleveland council, (m) Newcastle city council, (n) North Tyneside council and (o) South Tyneside council a decision has been made that a case should be returned to court for reconsideration following the judgment in R v. Cannings. [179918]

Margaret Hodge: Information about the number of cases returned to court by individual local authorities is not held centrally. The results of the ADSS survey of cases currently before the courts were placed in the Library of the House on 17 June 2004, as made clear in my written ministerial statement of that date. A further survey of past cases is to be undertaken by the ADSS, the results of which will also be published, later in the summer, by being placed in the House Library.

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many cases in the area of (a) Cumbria county council, (b) Durham county council, (c) North Yorkshire county council, (d) Newcastle city council, (e) North Tyneside council, (f) South Tyneside council, (g) Sunderland city council, (h) Gateshead borough council, (i) Middlesbrough borough council, (j) Stockton council, (k) Hartlepool council, (l) York city council, (m) Darlington unitary authority, (n) Northumberland county council and (o) Redcar and Cleveland council a decision towards adoption has been reversed or varied in a case reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission following the judgment in R v. Cannings. [179919]

Margaret Hodge: No information is held centrally about cases reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission following the judgment in R v. Cannings. The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has written to the legal representatives of five convicted individuals, drawing to their attention the possibility of a referral being made to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Information about the local authority areas of origin of the convicted people are not held centrally.

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in how many cases in the area of (a) Cumbria county council, (b) North Yorkshire county council, (c) Sunderland city council, (d) Gateshead borough council, (e) Darlington unitary authority, (f) Middlesbrough borough council, (g) Hartlepool council, (h) York city council, (i) South Tyneside council, (j) Redcar and Cleveland council and (k) Northumberland county council a decision has been made to return a child to its birth parents following the judgment in R v. Cannings. [179920]

Margaret Hodge: The information requested is not held centrally. On 17 June 2004, the results of the first survey by the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) were placed in the Library of the House of Commons. This revealed that in one case there had been a change in the care plan for a child following a local authority review in the light of the judgment in R v. Cannings. In a further 38 cases, it was not yet known
 
5 Jul 2004 : Column 461W
 
whether the review would result in a change in the care plan. In a further eight cases, there had been no change in the care plan. Information about the identity of the local authorities involved in these cases is not held centrally.

---