|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Andrew Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of (a) income support and (b) other benefits are affected by the outcome of Denise Christina Arathoon v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and what estimate he has made of the overall cost to his Department of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 24 June. 
Mr. Plaskitt: We estimate that the number of claimants affected will be less than 2,000. It is not possible to break this down by benefit. The total overall estimated cost is £110,350 which consists of estimated Departmental legal costs of £10,350 plus additional benefit expenditure estimated at £100,000.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will break down by expenditure and capital the 200304 Departmental Expenditure Limit baseline against which the financial savings of £960 million from annual efficiencies outlined in the Spending Review 2004 are calculated. 
[holding answer 11 November 2005]: The information requested can be found in the DWP Departmental Report 2005, Chapter 6, Table 1, a copy of which is available in the Library.
15 Nov 2005 : Column 1155W
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a financial reconciliation between the Department of Work and Pensions 200405 Capital Budget of £435 million in the 2004 Spending Review (Table 19.1) and the 200405 estimated outturn Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit of £299 million in the Department of Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2005. 
Mrs. McGuire [holding answer 11 November 2005]: The reason for the difference between the capital budget of £435 million in the 2004 Spending Review (Table 19.1) and the estimated outturn of £299 million was due to delayed spending on this budget as a result of rescheduling activities and associated expenditure on the Department's Change Programme, primarily on the rationalisation and modernisation of the estate and IT projects.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a financial reconciliation between the Department of Work and Pensions 200405 Resource Budget of £7,849 million in the 2004 Spending Review (Table 19.1) and the 200405 estimated outturn Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit of £8391million in the Department of Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2005. 
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 11 November 2005]: The Department for Work and Pensions 200405 Resource Budget of £7,849 million represents the Department's funding budget as calculated for Spending Review 2004 baseline purposes. This excluded the Department's stock of accumulated end year flexibility and made adjustments for other non recurrent funding streams. The reconciliation between the Resource Budget and the estimated outturn on the Departmental Expenditure Limit of £8,391 million is set out in the table.
|Resource budget per 2004 Spending Review (Table 19.1)||7,849|
|Use of end year flexibilitymain items:|
|Welfare modernisation programme||115|
|Roll out of Jobcentre Plus offices||87|
|Grant spending on European social fund programmes||67|
|Housing and council tax benefit administration grants||48|
|Spending Review 2004 Adjustments:|
|Assumed transfer of resources from revenue to capital variance||152|
|Other adjustmentsnon recurrent funds||60|
|Resource Outturn per Departmental Report 2005||8,391|
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will break down the leasehold improvements expenditure for 200304 and the estimated outturn for 200405 noted in Table 4 of the Department of Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2005 (Cm 6539) (a) by activity, (b) leasehold property and (c) expenditure type. 
[holding answer 11 November 2005]: The figures in Table 4 are not the in year expenditure, rather they are the closing net book value of the asset category. That is the value of the accumulated expenditure less the accumulated depreciation.
15 Nov 2005 : Column 1156W
|Opening net book value||12|
|Closing net book value||330|
The leasehold improvements relate to a programme of refurbishment of the Jobcentre Plus customer facing offices following the creation of the agency from the former Employment Service and Benefits Agency. The expenditure includes items such as structural improvements, flooring, ceilings, signage, painting and decorating.
The reclassification figure included above relates to refurbishment costs that were previously included under the asset category of fixtures and fittings, and more accurately recorded as leasehold improvements in 200304.
|Opening net book value||118|
|Closing net book value||259|
The estimated figures for 200405 were prepared at the time of the Spending Review 2004 calculations and are subject to subsequent changes in forecast outturns and adjustments, such as reclassifications, hence the variance on closing and opening book values between finance years.
Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list those that (a) rejected and (b) supported the introduction of housing benefit sanctions for those guilty of antisocial behaviour in responding to consultation on this proposal in August 2003; 
(2) how many and what proportion of (a) local authority, (b) registered social landlord, (c) private landlord and (d) Community Safety Partnership respondents to his Department's consultation in August 2003 on housing benefit sanctions against those guilty of antisocial behaviour were against the proposals; 
(3) what view the Social Security Advisory Committee expressed in response to his Department's consultation in August 2003 on housing benefit sanctions against those guilty of antisocial behaviour; 
(4) for what reasons his Department decided not to implement housing benefit sanctions for those guilty of antisocial behaviour following consultation in 2003; and if he will make a statement; 
15 Nov 2005 : Column 1157W
(5) what assessment his Department made of the potential impact of housing benefit sanctions on family members of a person committing antisocial behaviour who were not themselves responsible for antisocial behaviour. 
Mr. Plaskitt: The outcome of the consultation on housing benefit sanctions for antisocial behaviour was published on 27 January 2004 and an analysis of responses is available in the Library. This analysis sets out which organisations supported the proposals or not, including the response from the Social Security Advisory Committee. On the same day, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Chris Pond, issued a written ministerial statement explaining the Government's reasons for deciding not to proceed 27 January 2004, Official Report, columns 910WS.
In considering whether to proceed with a sanction, the Department looked at a number of issues, including the implications of sanctioning family members not involved in antisocial behaviour. The Department did not assess what the practical effect of a sanction would be although had we gone ahead, we would have tested the impact by piloting first.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many IT projects have been developed for his Department since 2001; and whether he has agreed to make public Gateway Reviews for these projects (a) in full and (b) in part. 
Mr. Timms: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has registered) in excess of 600 projects since its inception, including initiatives that were first registered by the Department for Social Security and the Department for Employment and Education. DWP does not differentiate between information technology projects and other types of project such as business change. Currently the Department has in excess of 100 individual projects, which embraces both information technology and business change.
All Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Gateway Reviews are conducted on a confidential basis for the senior responsible owner (SRO) and ownership of the report rests with the SRO. This approach promotes an open and honest exchange between the programme/project and review teams delivering maximum added value. The DWP has a strong record in adopting OGC policy and best practice initiatives and all the Department's mission critical/high and medium risk projects are subject to OGC Gateway Reviews. The Department does not publish Gateway Review Reports as a matter of course, in line with OGC policy. OGC and Departments have received a number of Gateway requests under Freedom of Information and the first of these is currently on appeal to the Information Commissioner.
15 Nov 2005 : Column 1158W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|