|New deal for young peopleleavers to sustained unsubsidised employment, Peterborough parliamentary constituency
|As a proportion of all leavers
|As a proportion of leavers with a known destination
Latest complete year data are to 2006.
Department for Work and Pensions, Information Directorate
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those leaving (a) the New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal 25 plus and (c) the New Deal for Lone Parents have entered unsubsidised, sustained employment in each year since the inception of these schemes. 
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) for what reasons the Government's response to the Deregulatory Review of Private Pensions recommended the introduction of a statutory override to allow schemes to implement the Pensions Act 2004 changes which reduced the limited price indexation cap from five per cent. to 2.5 per cent.; and if he will place in the Library the advice he received on this matter; 
(2) for what reasons the Government's response to the Deregulatory Review of Private Pensions recommended the reduction of the cap for revaluation of deferred rights from five per cent. to 2.5 per cent.; and if he will place in the Library the advice he received on this matter. 
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Introducing a statutory override of scheme rules in relation to the change in the cap on indexation for future rights, and a reduction in the cap on revaluation from 5 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. for future rights, together with the other measures outlined in the Government response, aims to help employers to keep defined benefit schemes open, to the benefit of scheme members. The Government response seeks views on those proposals accordingly.
The Government carefully considered the areas where deregulation would be of most benefit to good quality defined benefit schemes, while bearing in mind the need to balance any changes to legislation with protection for members. It accepted the reviewers important recommendation that no changes should be made to rights which have already been built up.
The issues on the proposed statutory override and change to the revaluation cap are fully set out in the reviewers report and the Government response. Copies of the report and response have been placed in the Library of the House.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what medical assessments are made of people who apply for benefits following a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement. 
Entitlement to disability or sickness related benefits is decided in the same way for people with chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic
encephalomyelitis as for other conditions. Assessments are based on the effects of the condition on each persons physical and mental function or their care or mobility needs.
For claimants of incapacity benefits, the Personal Capability Assessment is applied from the outset of the claim to people who have not recently been working in a regular occupation and to all other claims after 28 weeks of incapacity. For claimants of disability living allowance or attendance allowance, a medical examination would only take place if the decision maker feels that it is necessary.
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the use of overseas mail clearing services for his Department's post to overseas benefits recipients on the time taken for letters to be delivered to those recipients. 
The mail is then handed to the National Postal Authority (in which the recipient lives) for final delivery via an undocumented service. All mail travels as Priority which is equivalent to a first class service.
Rest of World countries: seven to 10 days.
European Countries: five to seven days.
Regular contact between DWP and Spring Global Mail (our international mail providers) establishes any service failures and investigate as appropriate to indicate whether there are problems affecting delivery to certain countries.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Minister for Equality, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on proposals for a Single Equality Bill. 
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes designed to combat anti-social behaviour are administered by her Department; and what the budget for each was for the last five years for which figures are available. 
Mr. Coaker: Since 2003-04, the Home Office has made £34.4 million available in each year specifically and solely to tackle antisocial behaviour. This includes funding for the Respect programme, which is now the responsibility of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and a grant for antisocial behaviour co-ordinators.
In 2005-06, in England the antisocial co-ordinators grant was pooled within the safer and stronger communities fund. This pooled budget supports the delivery of outcomes contained in local area agreements (LAAs). All LAAs include for this year (2007-08) mandatory outcomes and indicators relating to antisocial behaviour.
There are many funding streams that impact on antisocial behaviour. A more detailed account can be found in the report by the National Audit Office Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour (HC99 2006-07, December 2006). Other Home Office led activities also act to tackle antisocial behaviour, for example the introduction of community support officers, but a monetary value cannot be assigned to that contribution. Similarly, other Government Departments fund services that directly bear upon antisocial behaviour. For example the Crown Prosecution Service provides a network of specialist antisocial behaviour prosecutors, and Her Majesty's Court Service provides specialist antisocial behaviour response courts. There are many other programmes and services that contribute, sometimes indirectly, to tackling antisocial behaviour, including diversionary activities for young people, action against enviro-crime such as fly-tipping, neighbourhood wardens, as well as neighbourhood policing and neighbourhood management. A more detailed account can be found in the report of, and evidence to, the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on anti-social behaviour (Fifth Report, Session 2004-05, HC80).
Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many anti-social behaviour orders were issued in Lincolnshire in the last 12 months for which figures are available; 
|Number of ASBOs issued at all courts, as reported to the Home Office by the Court Service, by period and where restrictions are imposed within the local authority area of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, up to 31 December 2005( 1)
|1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000
|1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001
|1 June 2002 to 31 December 2002
|1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003
|1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004
|1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005
|1 June 2000 to 31 December 2005
|(1) Between 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data were collected on aggregate numbers only by police force area (pfa).
1. This local authority area table differs from criminal justice system area (cjsa) tables in that an issuing court can be outside the area in which the restrictions have been imposed. For example, an issuing court may be in Hampshire (cjsa) but restrictions apply solely to a local authority area within Dorset.
2. Previously issued data have been revised following joint Home Office/Court Service data reconciliation exercises.
3. Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) anti-social behaviour orders and (b) acceptable behaviour contracts were (i) breached and (ii) breached leading to a conviction in each police force area in each year for which figures are available; 
Mr. Coaker: Data on acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) are not collected by the Home Office as they are voluntary agreements and therefore not suitable for central data collection. However, surveys carried out by the Respect Task Force of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) indicated that over 25,000 ABCs have been made since October 2003.
Antisocial behaviour orders are issued by the courts. Statistics on breaches of antisocial behaviour order are collected centrally only where the breach has been proven in court. Criminal justice system (CJS) areas are coterminous with police force areas. The available information is shown in the tables.
|Number of ASBOs proven in court to have been breached at least once between 1 June 2000 and 31 December 2005 by CJS area( 1)
|(1) ASBOs may be issued in one area and breached in another. Breaches are counted in this table on the area of Issue. (2) Breach data from the magistrates' court administrative systems in Kent and Northamptonshire are known to have been under-reported. Note: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. Source: OCJR Court Proceedings Database.