|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
23 Mar 2007 : Column 1169Wcontinued
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings (a) she and (b) her Department's Ministers held with trade union representatives in 2006. 
Mr. Lammy: No Ministers have held any meetings with trade union representatives in 2006. However, DCMS officials meet regularly with them on a wide range of staffing and accommodation issues. The Permanent Secretary also chairs an annual meeting between senior management and local and national trade union representatives to review key departmental issues and the effectiveness of the day-to-day working relationship between the two sides.
Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to answer question (a) 126210 and (b) 126569, on the 2012 Olympics, tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. 
Mr. Caborn: I answered question 126569 on 22 March 2007, Official Report, column 1055W. We hope to be able to answer question 126210 shortly.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what right of access the Television Licensing Authority has to enter private premises to search for equipment which may require a licence; and if she will make a statement. 
TV Licensing officials may enter premises to check for unlicensed use of a television receiver only with the consent of the occupier or with a warrant issued under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003 by a justice of the peace in England and Wales, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland. Such a warrant may be issued only if the relevant official is satisfied by information provided on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing an offence of unlicensed use has been or is being committed; evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on the premises specified and a number of
additional conditions are satisfied. A warrant permits the authorised person or persons to enter the premises at any time and to search, examine and test any television receiver there. It must be executed within one month following its grant.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 February 2007, Official Report, column 201W, on the armed forces: deployment, if he will place in the Library a copy of the (a) documentation and (b) conclusions of the review of the data collation process on service personnel deployment. 
Mr. Ingram: The previous answer referred to measures taken to ensure that we provide robust data covering the numbers of military personnel deployed on operations. Administrative procedures for the collection and dissemination of data were examined, and improved where necessary. This did not take the form of a formal review, but we are confident that manpower figures are now being reported that better reflect the position with regard to the numbers of deployed personnel.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place the order for a fourth Astute class submarine. 
Mr. Ingram: Three Astute class submarines are on order with BAE Systems (Submarine Solutions), and further boat orders are currently being considered, subject to affordability. We are working with industry as part of the Defence Industrial Strategy to achieve an affordable and sustainable submarine programme.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2007, Official Report, column 1987W, on the Navy: military bases, (1) what factors have led to the delay in awarding this contract; and what steps have been taken to prevent further delay; 
(2) when he expects the contract to be signed. 
Mr. Ingram: Various factors have contributed to the delay in awarding the contract, including an extended time scale for bidders to submit their proposals and protracted negotiations for partnering agreements between the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and each of the bidders. In addition, since the announcement of Serco Denholm as the preferred bidder, consideration has been given to a revised proposal from the company to change the bidding entity for the provision of marine services. It also proved necessary to review the technical solution and carry out a re-pricing exercise as a result of changing market forces in the shipbuilding industry.
Good progress is now being made between MOD and Serco Denholm with all outstanding issues now agreed in the form of Heads of Terms. On current plans, the final contract is expected to be awarded to allow service commencement for the work already conducted by Serco Denholm (Vesting Day) by July 2007. Service commencement for the work currently conducted in-house by the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service is planned for October, to allow sufficient time to meet the TU Consultation requirements.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 19 January 2007, Official Report, column 1366W, on senior officers: Transport, what the reasons are for the delay in placing a copy of the regulations in the Library; how senior officers are (a) made aware of and (b) given access to these regulations; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: Currently, the MOD establishment responsible for the production of such documents is focusing on supporting urgent operational requirements and the request for a copy of the Joint Service Publication (JSP) 800 Vol. 2 and JSP 341 (re-issued as the JSP 800 Vol. 5) was mistakenly treated as a routine request and as a result has taken longer than expected. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House today.
The existence of JSPs is widely publicised throughout the MOD by means of Defence Instructions and Notices and through letters of instruction where appropriate. JSPs are available on the Defence intranet and, if their unit is an approved holder, senior officers can also access a CD or hard copy version. Additional advice can also readily be obtained from the authors of JSPs.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how many (a) direct and (b) indirect civilian jobs in (i) Scotland and (ii) the rest of the UK rely upon the Trident programme. 
Des Browne: The number of civilian jobs that rely directly on the current Trident programme is estimated to be 859 in Scotland with an additional 7,455 in the rest of the UK. The number of indirect civilian jobs is estimated to be 250 in Scotland and 6,700 in the rest of the UK.
Additionally, a significant number of military jobs in the UK directly support the Trident programme. In Scotland this amounts to some 1,776 jobs. It is not possible accurately to estimate the number of civilian jobs that reply indirectly on these military posts.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Navys Vanguard class SSBN ballistic submarines; and if he will consider enlarging the UKs current capability by procuring additional vessels. 
There are no plans to enlarge the UKs nuclear deterrent capability by procuring additional
Vanguard-class submarines. On 14 March, the House voted to support the Governments plans to maintain the deterrent beyond the life of the Vanguard-class submarines in accordance with the position set out in the White Paper. The Future of the United Kingdoms Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994) published in December 2006.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all vessels built under the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability Programme will be (a) classified as military vessels and (b) constructed within the United Kingdom. 
Mr. Ingram: All the ships to be procured under the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability programme will be classified as military vessels.
The Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability project is in its assessment phase, and it is therefore too early to say what the final designs and specifications for these vessels might be and where the work will be carried out. We will use the assessment phase to look into the potential options, taking into account best value for money and wider industrial factors, before any decisions are made at the main gate investment point.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has investigated the feasibility of retrofitting the Bay class landing ship dock auxiliaries with aircraft hangers. 
Mr. Ingram: There is currently no requirement for the Bay class landing ship dock auxiliary vessels to be fitted with an aircraft hangar and the feasibility of doing so has not been investigated.
Ms Butler: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to implement a slavery remembrance day. 
The Deputy Prime Minister: As I said in the House on 20 March 2007, Official Re port, column 688, the Government are encouraging a debate about how we can commemorate the slave trade in the future. We are aware of the strong calls for a national day for the remembrance of the slave trade and its abolition as well as highlighting the problem of modern day slavery, and are actively considering the issue.
As the House is aware, events and activities are taking place throughout this bicentenary year but with a special focus on both 25 March (the date Royal Assent was given to the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807) and 23 August (the UNESCO international day for the remembrance of the slave trade and its abolition). The House will be aware, however, that other dates have been suggested: the European Commission, for example, supports 11 June as a possible European day against
human trafficking. As I made clear in the House on 20 March 2007, Official Report, column 722, we are approaching the issue from a very positive perspective and Ministers are keen to listen to the views of our local communities as this year progresses on whether there should be a remembrance day and, if so, on what date it should fall.
Greg Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff work in the Office of the Third Sector, broken down by grade; and how many in each grade have (a) left and (b) joined the Office since its formation. 
Edward Miliband: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 28 November 2006, Official Report, column 593W.
Greg Clark: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which outside consultants have been commissioned to work on the review of the Office of the Third Sector; what their role is in the exercise; and how much they are being paid for their services. 
Following its establishment in May and the appointment of a new Director General,
the Office of the Third Sector is being restructured to enable it to deliver its objectives, reflecting the needs of third sector organisations.
There are no outside consultants working on this programme. An individual has been seconded from the Big Lottery Fund to lead the programme and support the Director General with implementation. It would not be appropriate to provide details of how much they are being paid for their services as to do so could reveal the individuals salary, which is personal information.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit fraud referrals were accepted for investigation in each year since 1999; in how many of these referrals fraud was detected in each year; and how many (a) sanctions were imposed, (b) prosecutions were made and (c) prosecutions resulted in a conviction in each year. 
Mr. Plaskitt: Figures for detected fraud by local authorities are not available. The available information is in the following table.
|Benefit fraud investigations, detected fraud, prosecutions, convictions and sanctions by DWP and local authorities|
|Referrals accepted for investigation||Detected fraud (DWP only)||Prosecutions||Convictions||Sanctions|
|(1) These figures are for DWP cases only. Referrals accepted for investigation, sanctions and prosecution are not available for 1999-2000 and 2000-01.|
1. Sanctions are defined here as the sum of prosecutions, admin penalties issued, and cautions issued.
2. The figures for cases of detected fraud are based on the number of effective benefit cases, which is defined as an investigation that results in an adjustment of the current rate of benefit, an overpayment or an underpayment or the person ceasing their claim to benefit. Detected fraud excludes general matching service (QMS) cases.
3. Referrals accepted exclude general matching service (GMS) cases.
4. Sanctions, prosecutions and convictions figures include GMS, Instrument of Payment (IOP) and Organised Fraud cases.
5. Prosecutions figures exclude cases withdrawn at court.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the cost of (a) operating and (b) advertising the benefit fraud hotline is in 2006-07; 
(2) what the cost was of (a) operating and (b) advertising the benefit fraud online form in each year since its inception; and how many people have been successfully prosecuted for fraud as a result of evidence from the online form in each year. 
Mr. Plaskitt: The Department runs public information campaigns designed to positively reinforce honest behaviour, create a climate of intolerance to benefit fraud and undermine its social acceptability.
The benefit fraud hotline has no specific advertising budget of its own and the cost of advertising it is not separately available.
The operational costs of administering the national benefit fraud hotline include the costs of administering the report-a-benefit-thief online service. These costs cannot be separated. The available information is in the following table.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|