| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2235W—continued
Local Authority Funding
Mark Hunter: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what proportion of social services departments in local authorities in England he expects will overspend their budgets in the financial year 2005–06; and whether the revenue support grant for 2006–07 will take such overspends into account; [30176]
(2) whether projected deficits in local authority social services departments in 2005–06 will be taken into account in the forthcoming revenue support grant for local authorities with responsibility for social services departments. [30177]
Mr. Woolas: Information on deficits or surpluses in local authority service budgets for the current financial year are not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Projected overspends or deficits are not taken into account in distributing formula grant.
London Governance
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government expects to publish a consultation paper on reform of London governance; and whether the Government expects to make an announcement on possible reforms before the 2006 London borough elections. [29720]
Jim Fitzpatrick:
The Government will publish a consultation paper on proposals for additional powers and responsibilities for the Mayor of London and the
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2236W
London Assembly in the next few weeks, and will announce a final package of proposals as soon as possible following the end of the consultation period.
Neighbourhood Renewal
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of the Neighbourhood Renewal Capacity Building Fund funding stream from the Government Office for London was made available to the London Borough of Croydon in 2004–05. [29955]
Mr. Woolas: There is no such fund as the Neighbourhood Renewal Capacity Building Fund.
Social Services Funding
Mr. Neil Turner: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the social services formula share is in 2005–06 per (a) younger adult, (b) child, (c) elderly person and (d) person in (i) Inner London local authorities, (ii) Outer London local authorities, (iii) English metropolitan authorities outside London, (iv) Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council area, (v) Salford City Council area, (vi) Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council area, (vii) South Tyneside Council area, (viii) Leeds City Council area and (ix) Wolverhampton City Council area. [29472]
Mr. Woolas: The table below shows the data requested.
Spatial Address Infrastructure
Sarah Teather: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the suspension of negotiations between the Improvement and Development Agency and Ordnance Survey on the production of a National Spatial Address Infrastructure. [30113]
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2237W
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published proposals for a National Spatial Address Infrastructure (NSAI) involving a partnership between Improvement and Development Agency and Ordnance Survey on 26 May 2005.
As announced on 11 August, the Improvement and Development Agency and Ordnance Survey were not able to reach agreement over the terms of the establishment of the NSAI.
Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are continuing to work with interested parties to investigate possible ways forward.
Sarah Teather: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the (a) total expenditure to date has been and (b) projected future expenditure is on the production of a National Spatial Address Infrastructure. [30114]
Jim Fitzpatrick: (a) Total cost of external consultants working on a National Spatial Address Infrastructure (NSAI) in 2004–05 was £23,750. A total of £22,500 has been or is expected to be spent in 2005–06.
(b) In terms of forecast expenditure, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has only specifically allocated budget to the NSAI in the financial year 2005–06; this was £2.3m as notified in the public prospectus launched in May 2005. Because Ordnance Survey and the Improvement and Development Agency could not reach agreement over the way forward, it is not certain that this funding will be required.
Standards Board
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Standards Board cases have been considered by the High Court in the last five years in which all proceedings are complete; and what the judgement was in each case. [26914]
Mr. Woolas: The Standards Board was established in March 2001.
Details of High Court cases, and the judgement in each case are as follows:
R (on the application of Hathaway) v Ethical Standards Officer
Murphy v ESO of the Standards Board for England
The appeal against the decision was dismissed; the appeal against the sanction was allowed, and reduced to a 4 month suspension.
Sloam v Standards Board for England
Scrivens v Ethical Standards Officer
The High Court adjudged the Adjudication Panel's decision was correct, but judged the sanction of 2 years disqualification to be excessive, and quashed it, due to the period of disqualification already served by the councillor prior to the appeal being heard.
Adami v Ethical Standards Officer
The High Court found that the reasons given for Adjudication Panel's decision were deficient, overturned the decision and quashed the sanction (it did not deal with the substance of the decision). The Standards Board is currently appealing the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.
Gill v Ethical Standards Officer
The High Court quashed the sanction of the Adjudication Panel, and reduced Cllr Gill's 1 year disqualification to 3 months suspension, on the grounds that the Panel had not correctly applied its sanctions guidance.
Sanders v Ethical Standards Officer
The High Court adjudged the Adjudication Panel's decision was correct, but judged the sanction of 18 months disqualification to be excessive, and quashed it, due to the period of disqualification already served by the councillor prior to the appeal being heard.
Valuation Office Agency
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 11 November 2005, Official Report, column 777W, on the Valuation Office Agency, what powers the Agency and its agents have to fine residents who refuse entry. [30665]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |