|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what analysis of the (a) effectiveness, (b) value for money and (c) future role of Place 2Be has been conducted by his Department; and if he will make a statement. 
Place 2Be currently receives £729,000 through the children, young people and families grant. Criteria for organisations supported
through this grant require them to have agreed performance indicators and targets that are monitored and evaluated on a six monthly basis. The Department has not made a separate analysis of the effectiveness, value for money or future role of Place 2Be.
Bill Rammell: Higher Education Institutions, as autonomous bodies, are responsible for the standards of their own qualifications and the quality of teaching. The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education conducts regular audits of the management of quality in each institution. Since 1997, QAA audit reports have shown consistently high ratings on quality and standards across all Higher Education Institutions (including post 92 institutions).
Beverley Hughes [holding answer 23 January 2007]: The following table sets out the budget allocated to deliver the Governments teenage pregnancy strategy, since it was launched in 1999. The table separates out the amounts spent on: local implementation (paid through a local implementation grant to each top-tier local authority in England); and the amount retained by the teenage pregnancy unit (TPU) to pay for aspects of the strategy that are best managed centrally, such as funding for the national media campaign and commissioning of research projects).
|Financial year||Local implementation||Central costs||Total|
|(1)Budgets in years 2003-04 to 2005-06 included funding for the Sure Start Plus pilots.|
|Budget||Amount (£ million)|
1. National programme manager
2. National policy manager
3. National support manager
4. TPU data analyst
5. Support for local implementation
6. Admin officer
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people in (a) Eastbourne and (b) East Sussex have participated in projects funded by youth opportunity funds and youth capital funds in each of the last two years. 
Beverley Hughes: The Youth Opportunity Fund (YOF) and the Youth Capital Fund (YCF) were announced in the Green Paper Youth Matters and have been available to local authorities from April 2006. A total of £115 million is available for both funds over the period 2006-08.
Definitive data on participation across England will be available at the end of this financial year. The data that we have so far shows that more than 9,000 young people have been involved in making decisions about how the two funds are being used, and that around 24,000 have been involved in developing and submitting bids for the funding.
In East Sussex YOF funding has been administered by seven funding panels; five borough and district panels (allocating funding within their area) and two specialist panels (allocating funding to targeted groups). Over 80 young people have been involved in local panels. 12 young people from Eastbourne have been involved in their local panel. Three of these young people have also been involved in the YOF countywide steering group.
To date around 115 YOF/YCF projects have been approved in East Sussex including over 30 from Eastbourne. The range of projects is diverse and will benefit a wide range of young people including those who are disadvantaged, but detailed information on the number of young people involved is not available until the end of the financial year.
Use of backscatter technology as an alternative to full body hand searching started at London Heathrow airport in June 2004 as part of a programme for trialling enhanced screening processes. The implementation of this equipment is now being evaluated.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken to regulate the effect of the implementation of the Animals Scientific Procedures Better Regulation Action Plan on animal welfare; 
Joan Ryan: The objectives of the Animals Scientific Procedures Better Regulation Programme are to simplify current regulatory requirements and administrative processes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and reduce compliance costs whilst maintaining animal welfare standards.
The programme will be overseen and managed within the framework for implementation of the Home Office Simplification Plan, announced in December 2006, and will actively involve operational level practitioners from industry and academia and those with a special interest in animal welfare to identify and prioritise the regulatory requirements and administrative processes to be improved and the compliance costs to be reduced; and to devise and test practical solutions, including assessing any impact on animal welfare.
All animals that are used in procedures licensed under the 1986 Act must be housed and cared for in a way that meets the standards published in the Home Office codes of practice for the housing and care of animals.
We continue to work to ensure that the highest standards of animal welfare are being implemented and have no intention of introducing measures that will weaken the protections afforded by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Dr. Vis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings at Ashfield Young Offender Institution since 2004; and what the outcome was in each case. 
Mr. Sutcliffe: There have been a total of 47 staff subjected to disciplinary proceedings at Ashfield since 2004. The outcomes were that seven staff were dismissed, 17 given final written warnings, 10 given written warnings, 12 received verbal warnings and one member of staff was regraded.
Mr. Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was to the public purse of the (a) overheads, (b) salaries, (c) expenses and (d) other associated costs of the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland in the last full year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Coaker: The 2005-06 costs of running the Belfast office of the Assets Recovery Agency totalled £8.3 million gross (£5.2 million net). This was made up of £2.1 million in staff costs, £4.3 million in receivers and other specialists fees, overheads of £1.5 million and other costs of £0.3 million. Asset recoveries applied against receivers fees totalled £3.0 million, leaving net costs of £5.2 million.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future handling of (a) prosecutions and (b) investigations now being carried out at the Assets Recovery Agency in Northern Ireland. 
Mr. Coaker: The Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) has no powers to bring prosecutions. In Northern Ireland this will remain the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service. The ARA will maintain its current efforts in disrupting organised criminal enterprises through the civil recovery of criminal assets and through taxation until the merger with the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which is not likely to take place before April 2008. In addition the ARA has been carrying out some criminal confiscation work in Northern Ireland in support of cases investigated by Northern Ireland Government Departments and prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Service. SOCA will take over responsibility for all of ARAs existing cases after the merger. The Serious Crime Bill includes provisions to extend the power to launch civil recovery proceedings to both SOCA and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on future arrangements for liaison and co-operation between the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Republic of Irelands Criminal Assets Bureau following the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. 
Mr. Coaker: The Government fully support the excellent co-operation that exists between the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland in disrupting criminal enterprises through the recovery of assets. These arrangements will continue when ARA is merged with the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff from the Serious Organised Crime Agency will be based in Northern Ireland following the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. 
Mr. Coaker: Nothing in the Governments proposals to merge the Assets Recovery Agency with the Serious Organised Crime Agency will take away from our efforts in tackling organised crime in Northern Ireland through the recovery of assets. Our aim is that it will improve and enhance our efforts to do so. All staff in the Assets Recovery Agency in Belfast will have the opportunity to transfer to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. No decisions have yet been taken about the total numbers of SOCA staff to be based in Belfast following the merger which is not likely to take place before April 2008. However, as was made clear in the written ministerial statement of 11 January 2007, Official Report, column 21WS, there will be no diminution in the resources available for asset recovery work in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions over the last two years his officers were carrying out dawn raids on asylum seekers accompanied by the police; for what reasons in each case; how many police were involved in each case; and who paid police overtime in those cases; 
(2) how many (a) officials in his Department and (b) police officers were involved in the operation of dawn raids on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2005 and (iv) 2006; and at which local Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices these raids were organised; 
Mr. Byrne: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) does not conduct raids against asylum seekers. Officers undertake operational visits to detain and remove persons who no longer have the right to remain in the UK and do so in line with operational policy and guidance. IND is unable to supply the level of detailed information requested as to do so would have significant resource implications and is available only at disproportionate cost. Information about each immigration enforcement operation involving police officers has been kept since 2005 and therefore data on operations supported by the police in 1998 and 1999 are not available. In 2005 and 2006 there were 8,865 and 13,953 police supported operations respectively, some of which will have been undertaken early in the morning for operational reasons. I can confirm that all Police Operational Support Unit (POSU) costs, which include overtime for all operations, are paid by IND.
In 2001 the Home Office asked the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) for the support of the police service to assist with the arrest of immigration offenders (including unsuccessful asylum seekers). ACPO, on behalf of the police service, agreed to this request. There have been no known representations received from the police federation on the use of the police service to assist with enforcement operations.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|