Mr. Doran: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what the Commission has decided on the implementation of the Tebbit review of management and services of the House. 
Nick Harvey: In July the Commission agreed to fast track several areas of the Tebbit Review as detailed in my answer on 24 July 2007 (HC Deb 925W). Following the debate in Westminster Hall on 18 October and comments from the Finance and Services, Administration and Audit Committees, the Commission approved the following changes on 22 October.
A new Management Board replaced the existing Board of Management with immediate effect. The Management Board consists of the Clerk, as Chief Executive and Chairman, four director generals with functional responsibilities, and up to two external advisers. The six House Departments other than PICT will be merged into four new Departments broadly aligned with the Director Generals responsibilities. These will be:
Department of Chamber and Committee Servicesincorporating Clerks Department, Hansard and core elements of the Serjeants Department;
Department of Information Servicesincorporating the Library and allied information services;
Department of Resourcesincorporating Finance and Administration;
Department of Facilitiesincorporating Estates and Works, Accommodation Services and Refreshment Department.
These new Departments will come into effect on 1 January 2008. A recruitment exercise to fill the new post of Director General of Facilities will be put in place. Pending an appointment, the Commission has agreed that the Director of Catering Services will lead the work to create the new Department of Facilities.
PICT will be formally vested as joint Department of the two Houses early in 2008. Pending a review in 2009 of the working of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007, the Director of PICT will attend the Management Board as one of its external members.
The aim is to create a fully unified House Service that will provide Members and others with the highest standards of service. The changes are consistent with the approach recommended in the Tebbit report, but also address a number of issues on which the report did not reach a firm conclusion. The intention is that the changes will be cost neutral and there are no planned redundancies. I understand that consultation has begun with both staff and trade unions on how best to create the new Departments.
Sir George Young: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what progress has been made by the Commission in nominating a candidate for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. 
Nick Harvey: The Commissions report recommending to the House Mr. John Lyon CB, currently the Director General of Legal and Judicial Services in the Ministry of Justice, is being published today at 11 am as House of Commons Paper 1096. Copies are available from the Vote Office. It is expected that the recommendation will be put to the House for approval in early November.
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance his Department follows on the maximum time taken to respond to hon. Members correspondence; and what performance against that target was in the most recent period for which figures are available. 
Mr. Malik: In Guatemala between 2004-05 DFID contributed $150,000 through the InterAmerican Development Bank to NGOs working with street children. This funding provided education, psycho-social care and work opportunities.
The British Embassy in Guatemala City has supported many local NGO projects on child rights including a sustainable training programme for police officers in the city centre. This aims to improve officers dealings with street children, ensure the inclusion of child rights in the Police Academy training curriculum and encourage efforts to bring child abusers to justice.
Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much support the UK made available to help developing countries with forestry programmes and reafforestation projects in (a) 2005-06 and (b) 2006-07; and what proportion of the (i) total international development budget and (ii) UK bilateral aid each figure represented in each year. 
In 2005-06 £15 million of DFID bilateral expenditure was spent directly on forestry programmes. This represented 0.35 per cent. of the total DFID programme and 0.62 per cent. of the bilateral programme in 2005-06. In 2006-07 a further £15 million of DFID bilateral expenditure was spent
directly on forestry programmes representing 0.31 per cent. of the total DFID programme and 0.60 per cent. of the bilateral programme in that year. These figures do not include spending on forestry programmes funded by partner governments to whom we provide budget support, nor do they include spending through the multilateral system to which we also contribute.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (1) how many academies opened (a) before and (b) after September 2005 have exceeded budgets for (i) new buildings and (ii) start up costs; 
Jim Knight: There are now 83 academies open. Up to and including September 2005, 27 academies were opened, with the remaining 56 academies opening between September 2006 and September 2007 (inclusive). Of the 27 academies which opened up to and including September 2005, 16 (59 per cent.) have exceeded their budgets for new buildings. Of the 56 academies opening between September 2006 and September 2007 (inclusive), 13 (23 per cent.) have exceeded their budgets for new buildings. For those academies opened between September 2006 and September 2007 (inclusive) that have exceeded their original budgets for new buildings, the average overspend is £3,850,536(1).
Academies are allocated fixed budgets to cover start up costs, which they are free to apply as they see fit.
There are two types of start up grant. The first is intended to cover expenditure to acquire a basic stock of books and equipment. All academies are paid this grant by a formula which is based mainly on pupil numbers.
The second is paid to meet costs arising in the first years of an academy and comprises two elements, one of which is allocated by formula and the other, for which academies must bid, to cover exceptional transitional costs.
(1) The number and percentage of academy building projects exceeding their agreed budgets for buildings, and the average overspend is subject to change, as not all open academy building projects have been completed.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families if he will take steps to increase local authority representation on the governing bodies of academies, with particular reference to cases where the authority is a sponsor. 
Jim Knight: All academies have at least one local authority representative on their governing body. Where the local authority is a co-sponsor, the lead sponsor retains majority control over the Academy Trust, but can appoint two local authority appointed governors to the governing body.
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many and what percentage of children met the Government's literacy and numeracy targets in each London borough in each of the last five years. 
Jim Knight: The following tables set out the percentage of pupils in each London borough achieving the target level 4 and above at key stage 2, and level 5 and above at key stage 3 in English and in maths for each year since 2002. The underlying numbers can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above in KS2 tests|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|