|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
28 Feb 2007 : Column 1390Wcontinued
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding the Heritage Lottery Fund has provided to the IPPR or IPPR Trading Ltd. in each year since its creation; and what the purpose was of such funding. 
Mr. Lammy: Since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund has taken part in three IPPR research projects to enable it to understand better the role of lottery funding for heritage in the communities with which it works. Two of these projects have examined the role of culture and heritage in building common identity and sense of belonging, and the other looked at the role that culture can play in community regeneration and civil renewal. HLF paid £48,500 for its part in these projects.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding Ofcom has provided to the IPPR or IPPR Trading Ltd. in each year since its creation; and what the purpose was of such funding. 
Mr. Woodward: The matters raised are the responsibility of the Office of Communications (Ofcom) as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman. Copies of the Chief Executives letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 19 February 2007, Official Report, column 5W, on the London Olympics, when she expects the 2012 organising committee to finalise the budget for the opening and closing sessions of the Olympic and Paralympic games. 
Tessa Jowell: The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is a privately funded commercial organisation.
Although LOCOG is currently finalising the budgets for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, due to commercial sensitivities, particularly with regards to ensuring that the organising committee is in a position to ensure value for money from suppliers and contractors, the final budgets will not be published.
LOCOG is working within the overall framework set out in the candidate file and is confident that the budget for these elements of the Games will sit within its £2 billion revenue budget.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2007, Official Report, column 713W, on the London Olympics, whether the payment of VAT on capital costs for the 2012 Olympics incurred by the public sector was discussed during meetings of the Budget and Revenues Sub Group. 
Tessa Jowell: The minutes of the Budgets and Revenues Sub Group do not record any discussion of VAT on capital costs for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games but the group would have been aware that this was an issue that needed to be addressed in the future if the bid was won.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library a copy of the (a) agenda and (b) minutes of each meeting of the Olympic cost review steering group. 
Tessa Jowell: Yes. I am arranging for copies of the Agenda and Minutes to be placed in the Library of the House. The names of officials have been redacted as they are not regarded as being relevant to the purpose of the question.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the date was of each meeting of the Olympics cost review steering group which held its first meeting on 31 October 2005; and what latest estimate for Olympic cost overruns was discussed at each meeting. 
Tessa Jowell: The dates of the meetings were: 31 October 2005, 14 November 2005 and 28 November 2005. No estimates of Olympics costs overruns were discussed at those meetings. At that time KPMG were still reviewing the costs across the Olympic programme. They had identified a range of potential cost risks, but had not quantified these at that stage.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library the representations which have been received by English Heritage on the location of the new Supreme Court in Middlesex Guildhall. 
Mr. Lammy: Arrangements will be made to place the representations English Heritage has received about the location of the new Supreme Court in Middlesex Guildhall in the Library of the House.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library (a) a list of meetings between officials and Ministers from her Department with their counterparts at the Department for Constitutional Affairs at which the location for the new Supreme Court in Middlesex Guildhall was mentioned and (b) the minutes and agendas of those meetings. 
There were no meetings between DCMS and DCA to discuss locating the Supreme Court at Middlesex Guildhall. DCMSs locus in
matters relating to listing buildings is restricted to deciding whether to add a building to the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. Issues relating to alteration of buildings once listed are the responsibility of local planning authorities.
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people received a free television licence in the London borough of Bexley in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Woodward: TV Licensing, which administers free television licences for people aged 75 or over as agents for the BBC, are not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, the number of households with at least one person aged 75 or over claiming the winter fuel payment in the London borough of Bexley was 13,620, according to Department for Work and Pensions records for winter 2005-06.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what pension scheme arrangements are planned for staff of the proposed Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission. 
Mr. Plaskitt: C-MEC employees will have access to the principal civil service pension scheme.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he envisages the role of providing appropriate information and guidance, as proposed on page 33 of the White Paper A new system of child maintenance will be apportioned between Jobcentre Plus staff and private and voluntary sector organisations. 
Mr. Plaskitt: The role of Jobcentre Plus in this respect is currently being developed.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reviews of data collection and processing are being implemented following publication of the December 2006 Child Support Agency quarterly summary statistics; and how the error in the data relating to enforcement processes was identified. 
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 19 February 2007]: Following the release of the December 2006 Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary Statistics, the data and processing behind the following tables are being reviewed:
Table 11Cash Compliance
Table 13.1Percentage of Parents with Care on income support or jobseekers allowance (income based) in Receipt of Maintenance
Table 21Enforcement Activity
A fully revised version of Table 13.1 was released on 8 February 2007. A brief explanation of the reasons for the revision are on the table. The new table is available in the House of Commons Library. The tables and a detailed technical note on the change are available on the DWP website.
A review of Table 11 (cash compliance) is currently under way and will report in the next issue of the QSS on 26 April 2007.
The error in Table 21 (enforcement activity) was discovered by comparing recent trends with historical performance. An investigation is in progress. Following this, a revised table and explanatory note will be published.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he uses to assess the productivity of staff at the Child Support Agency. 
Mr. Plaskitt: The Child Support Agency has annual targets set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. These targets are published in Hansard and the Annual Report and Accounts of the Child Support Agency. Performance against these targets is measured and published, on a quarterly basis, in the Agencys Quarterly Summary Statistics, which can be accessed at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/csa.asp
The productivity of Agency people is measured in line with performance against these targets.
Individual performance is assessed each year through the Departments performance and development appraisal system.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to (a) the letter of 27 March 2006 (ref CSA PCV 154092/SR/JG), (b) subsequent correspondence and (c) the letter of 9 January 2007
(ref CSA PCV 161732/SM/JG) to the hon. Member for Totnes, on the case of constituent Mrs. N. Beardsmore of Paignton, what technical difficulties have prevented progression of Mrs. Beardsmore's case regarding child maintenance; what steps he is taking to tackle these difficulties; and what the reason is for the time taken to conclude this case. 
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 7 February 2007]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is the matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 28 February 2000:
In reply to your recent parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to (a) the letter of 27 March 2006 (ref CSA PCV 154092/SR/JG) (b) subsequent correspondence and (c) the letter of 9 January 2007 (ref CSA PCV 161732/SM/JG) to the hon. Member for Totnes on the case of constituent Mrs. N. Beardsmore of Paignton what technical difficulties have prevented progression of Mrs. Beardsmores case regarding child maintenance; what steps he is taking to tackle these difficulties; and what the reason is for the time taken to conclude this case. 
As details about individual cases are confidential I have written to you separately about this case.
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the gifts received by special advisers and declared to his Department in 2005-06; on what date each gift was given; what the estimated cost of each gift was; what the reason was for giving each gift; and what the name of the donor was. 
Mrs. McGuire: According to the Departments records, the following gifts were received by special advisers in 2005-06.
|Date||Gift||Estimated cost (£)||Reason||Name of donor|
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) average and (b) longest period was between the date of an incident relating to health and safety and the date on which a health and safety prosecution was instituted in (i) magistrates' courts and (ii) Crown Courts in each of the last five years . 
The table shows, each of the years from 2000-01 to 2004-05, the time in days between the date that the Heath and Safety Executive (HSE) became aware of a health and safety incident and the date on which prosecution was approved and the proceedings were then instituted. The data come from cases, instituted by HSEs Field Operations Directorate, which were heard subsequently in magistrates' or Crown courts in each of these years. The range reflects the different circumstances of each case. Some may be relatively simple, whereas others can be very complicated, with complex technical issues, with a number of dutyholders to investigate, and with complex evidential and legal issues to be considered. Necessary and inevitable delays may arise in cases involving deaths, due to the necessity for the police and CPS to investigate and consider possible manslaughter
charges, and for an inquest to be arranged and held, before any possible health and safety charges can be taken forward. These delays can be significant.
|HSE's Field Operations Directorate: Prosecutions Days from incident/offence to approval/institution|
|Magistrates courts||Crown courts|
|Average (median)||Max||Average (median)||Max|
Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many defendants in prosecutions brought in each of the last five years by the Health and Safety Executive were (a) individuals, (b) corporate bodies and (c) individuals prosecuted by virtue of being trustees of a charitable body; and whether any of the corporate or unincorporated bodies were charities. 
Mrs. McGuire: HSE brought the following number of charges against (a) individual persons and (b) corporate bodies. It is not possible to identify trustee of charitable bodies or charities, without manually examining each case, which would involve excessive time and cost.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|