| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 July 2006 : Column 108W—continued
Departmental Staff (Sickness Absence)
David Simpson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to the answer of 5 June 2006, Official Report, column 244W, on sickness absence, how many staff in her Department have had two or more periods of sick leave of less than five days in two or more of the years for which she has provided figures. [84031]
Mr. McFadden: The Cabinet Office had 365 staff with two or more periods of sick absence of less than five days in two or more of the years between 2003 and 2005. “Analysis of sickness absence in the Civil Service”, copies of which are available in the Library for the reference of Members, publishes sickness absence lost per employee for Government Departments.
FIFA World Cup
Mr. Hands: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which matches (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department attended at the FIFA World Cup 2006 in Germany in their ministerial capacity; at what cost to public funds; and with what contributions from third party organisations. [83617]
Hilary Armstrong: Cabinet Office Ministers have not attended any World Cup 2006 matches.
Official Residence
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff work in the Old Admiralty Building. [85668]
Mr. Hoon: I have been asked to reply.
On 1 July 2006, 1,093 Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff were employed in the Old Admiralty Building.
Parliamentary Questions
Mr. Amess:
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many parliamentary questions tabled to
her Department were awaiting a reply on 10 July 2006; which of those had been waiting longer than (a) two and (b) three weeks for a reply; and what the reason for the delay was in each case. [85199]
Hilary Armstrong: At the end of business on Monday 10 July 2005, there were 17 parliamentary questions tabled to the Department awaiting a response, of which one was two weeks overdue. The question was responded to on Tuesday 11 July.
Statutory Instruments
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many statutory instruments were made by (a) Government departments and (b) other UK authorities in each year from 1989 to 2005. [84968]
Edward Miliband: The number of statutory instruments made in each year from 1989 to 2005 is shown in the table.
It is not possible to provide information split between Government Departments and other UK authorities prior to 2003. The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Detailed statutory instrument statistics are also available on the website of the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si-statistics.htm
Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions a statutory instrument sponsored by her Department has been reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as defective since October 2005. [85181]
Hilary Armstrong:
The Cabinet Office has had one statutory instrument reported as defective since October 2005—The Civil Contingencies Act 2004
(Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/2042). A correction slip was issued in February 2006 to correct the error.
Communities and Local Government
Brownfield Sites
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many acres of brownfield sites she estimates there are in (a) West Sussex and (b) Mid Sussex. [84843]
Yvette Cooper [holding answer 13 July 2006]: The information shown as follows is the total of sites reported by local authorities for the 2004 National Land Use Database of Previously-Developed Land. Local authorities do not claim to cover all sites in their returns, particularly small sites, so the totals understate the full amounts.
| Hectare | ||
| West Sussex | Mid Sussex | |
Community Infrastructure Scheme
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many projects have been selected for detailed appraisal under the Community Infrastructure Scheme; and how many of these (a) have been rejected, (b) have been approved and (c) are under review. [85075]
Yvette Cooper: Two London Gateway transit schemes were allocated £34 million of Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) funding in November 2004 to provide support to the 2012 Olympics bid. In addition, the Government received 104 expressions of interest in January 2005 for the remaining £166 million of CIF funding. These were reviewed and in March 2005 the Government announced that 48 schemes would be invited to prepare full bids. Following detailed assessment of the bids received, 25 schemes have been allocated CIF funding, with a further six schemes receiving Department for Communities and Local Government funding. The Government are working with local partners to look into other funding options for a small number of the remaining schemes.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much of the Community Infrastructure Fund announced in July 2004 has been (a) spent and (b) otherwise committed to be spent on identified projects; and what these projects are. [85076]
Yvette Cooper:
In total £193 million of the £200 million Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) has been allocated following a series of announcements—the final of which took place on 11 April 2006. The
remaining £7 million is to be used as a contingency reserve to address any emerging issues that may arise over this two-year programme.
Following is a list of the approved CIF schemes:
| Scheme name | Growth area | Total CIF £ million (to 2dp) |
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the status is of the appraisal of the Barking-Dagenham-Rainham-Grays-Pitsea 12 car platform lengthening project for funding under the Community Infrastructure Fund. [85074]
Yvette Cooper: The announcement of the final tranche of schemes to be funded under the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) was made in April 2006 and was placed on both the Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) websites.
The Barking-Dagenham-Rainham-Grays-Pitsea 12 car platform lengthening project bid was not successful. There were numerous bids for GIF funding and DfT and DCLG ministers had to prioritise schemes against a cash limited fund.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the reasons were for rejecting the Rainham interchange project submitted by the London borough of Havering for funding under the Community Infrastructure Fund. [85073]
Yvette Cooper: There were many bids for Community Infrastructure Funding. We, with colleagues in the Department for Transport, had to prioritise schemes against a cash limited fund. The bid for the Rainham scheme was to fund enabling works and so would not, in itself, have delivered a capital infrastructure project to support housing growth.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |