|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19, (e) 20 (f) 21, (g) 22, (h) 23 and (i) 24 year olds were (i) economically inactive and not in full-time education and (ii) unemployed in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) parliamentary constituency, (B) local education authority area and (C) region. 
The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19, (e) 20, (f) 21, (g) 22, (h) 23 and (i) 24 year olds were (i) economically inactive and not in full-time education and (ii) unemployed in each year since 1997, broken down by (A) parliamentary constituency, (b) local education authority area and (C) region. I am replying in her absence. (147035)
Information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. To provide an answer requires retrieving 18 separate estimates from complex datasets for each parliamentary constituency, each local education authority area and each region for 10 separate years. This data, amounting to 150,000 separate estimates in total, would then need to be presented in tables and be quality assured.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 26 April 2007, Official Report, column 1323W, on Valuation Office: contracts, if he will place in the Library a copy of the ASPIRE terms and conditions which relate to confidentiality. 
As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated in his answer of 26 April 2007, Official Report, column 1323W, the ASPIRE terms and conditions prohibit the publicising of details of this agreement. However, in respect of the specific information requested, the Government have obtained the agreement of both parties to the contract to place a copy of the clauses relating to confidentiality in the Library of the House. These include the statutory safeguards provided for by Section 182 of the Finance Act 1989, Section 18 of the Commissioners for
Revenue and Customs Act 2005, Section 6 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 or Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. A copy of the ASPIRE terms and conditions relating to confidentiality have been placed in the Library.
Jane Kennedy: As announced at Budget 2007, from 1 July the VAT chargeable on certain home adaptations that are designed to support the needs of elderly people will be reduced to 5 per cent. the lowest rate available under our European VAT agreements. The precise scope of this new relief was outlined in HMRC Brief 47/07 which is available on the HMRC website at:
Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimates he has made of the proportion of tax credit overpayments which are caused by official error; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Laws: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls to the tax credits helpline were dealt with by private sector companies in each month from January 2003 to June 2007; how many of these were not recorded; and what steps are taken to notify claimants of this fact, where relevant, when they appeal against overpaid tax credits. 
Jane Kennedy: HMRC supplemented its internal Contact Centre capacity with the use of private sector companies to deliver tax credit services during 2003-04. The table lists the monthly calls handled by these suppliers for the period requested. During any months in the period in question, where a value is not shown for calls handled, HMRC did not need to use private sector companies to supplement its services, and all calls were handled by HMRC.
|( 1) Calls handled|
|(1) volumes shown in thousands, rounded to the nearest thousand|
Mr. Thomas: DFID acknowledge the seriousness of the epidemic in Uganda and are working closely with the Government of Uganda, other donors and civil society organisations to support the Governments own national strategic plan for universal access to treatment, care and prevention. DFID are providing £9 million over three years to enhance national institutional capacity to achieve universal access. Our support is especially helping address potential gaps in the Governments prevention strategy.
The UK is the second largest donor of AIDS-related assistance in developing countries, spending £385 million in 2005-06. This includes supporting multilateral institutions like the World Bank, the UN agencies and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria whose combined operations span all developing countries.
DFID have committed £359 million to the Global Fund for 2002-08, including £100 million in 2006 and the same for 2007. The fund is supporting substantial HIV and AIDS programmes in both Senegal and Uganda, with commitments of $41 million and $166 million respectively.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken by his Department in conjunction with the Asian Development Bank to alleviate poverty in Bangladesh. 
DFID works closely with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Bangladesh as part of a Joint Strategy partnership (which also includes the
World Bank and Japan). Together, these four donors account for 80 per cent. of all development assistance to Bangladesh.
The Joint Strategy partnership group was formed in 2005 as a response the Government of Bangladeshs Poverty Reduction Strategy. The Joint Strategy approach has allowed more effective allocation of lead sector responsibilities among donors, and it is hoped that it will eventually lead to the development of a common donor strategy for Bangladesh.
DFID is contributing £15 million over six years to provide improved primary health care services in urban areas. The project, co-funded by the ADB, has a particular focus on providing health care services to poor women and girls.
DFID is providing £35 million over five years to RIIP II, which is also funded by ADB and the German Government, to reduce physical, social and economic exclusion among 28 million people in 23 of Bangladeshs poorest districts. This recently approved project will develop rural infrastructure and improve access to services and markets, provide opportunities for employment and strengthen the capacity of local government to deliver infrastructure services to the poor.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many bonuses were awarded to senior civil servants working at his Department and its agencies in each year between 1997 and 2006; and what the total cost of those bonuses was. 
Mr. Malik: From 2002, individual departments and agencies have been responsible for their own reward arrangements for senior civil servants (including the award of non-pensionable performance bonuses) within a framework set by the Cabinet Office.
The following table gives the number of bonuses awarded to DFIDs senior civil servants since 2002, together with the total costs for each of those years. All bonus payments are non-pensionable. No bonus payments were made by DFID to members of the senior civil service prior to 2002.
|(1 )The percentage of the senior civil service (SCS) paybill allocated to performance related bonuses has increased year-on-year. This is in line with the Governments stated objective of building the bonus pot annually so that it reaches 10 per cent. of the SCS paybill by 2008.|
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many non-pensionable bonuses were awarded to members of staff in his Department in the last three years; and at what total cost. 
|Non-pensionable bonuses awarded to DFID senior civil servants (SCS)|
|n/a = not applicable.|
(1) Non-pensionable bonuses for the SCS in relation to the 2006-07 reporting year are not payable until November 2007.
(2) The percentage of the SCS paybill allocated to performance related bonuses is increasing year on year. This is in line with the Governments stated objective of building the bonus pot annually so that it reaches 10 per cent. of the SCS paybill by 2008.
|Non-pensionable bonuses awarded to DFID staff in grades below the SCS|
|(1) For DFID staff below the SCS, the amount of money allocated for all forms of bonus payment is limited to a maximum of 1.2 per cent. of the paybill costs.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|