Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was spent by her Department (a) in total and (b) on staff costs on promoting equality and diversity in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and how many people are employed by her Department for this purpose. 
In July 2007, the EDU transferred to the Race Equality Unit taking seven posts, a pay budget of £319,000 and a non-pay budget of £16,000. The newly formed Race Equality and Diversity Division has a forecast outturn in 2007-2008 of £1,126,099 pay costs (average 35.55 FTE posts) and £80,260 non-pay costs. Due to Machinery of Government changes it is difficult for the Department to provide more detail.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what percentage of funding allocated to Gloucestershire for (a) flood recovery and (b) the introduction of flood prevention measures has been drawn down. 
John Healey: To date £14,984,900 has been awarded to councils within Gloucestershire to support their recovery from the floods last summer. This includes £2,763,000 in Flood Recovery Grant, paid by the Department for Communities and Local Government to the county's six district councils to support flood affected communities. It is for authorities in receipt of grant to decide how to use and distribute any of this funding locally.
Flood affected Local Authorities have also been able to apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government for help through the Bellwin scheme which provides financial assistance to local authorities dealing with emergencies. Exceptionally, the terms of the present
schemes, have been made more generous because of the circumstances of the recent floods. Gloucestershire County Council received an interim payment of £1.1 million to help with its costs in clearing up after last summer's floods and Gloucester City Council received an interim payment of £114,000. Both may receive further payments once they submit final claims. Claims have also recently been received from Gloucestershire Police, Worcester City Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice how much was spent on probation services in each year since 1997; what expenditure is expected for the forthcoming financial year; and how much of this spending (a) was and (b) will be dedicated to (i) mental health services, (ii) substance abuse rehabilitation services and (iii) vocational education in each of these years. 
On 25 June 2007 the Ministry of Justice provided an answer to a written question from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on spending on probation services in each year since 1997. I regret that although the answer described the figures provided as expenditure, most of the figures were budget figures.
The following table provides expenditure figures from 2001-02, when the probation service was created in its current form. For earlier years local Probation Committees were responsible for delivery and the figures include some estimates.
1. The data includes probation boards (and prior to 2001-02 probation committees and local authorities), the National Probation Directorate and latterly relevant expenditure met by the National Offender Management Service centre.
2. From 2001-02 the resource expenditure included in respect of local probation boards is the Net Operating Cost recorded in the annual consolidated accounts of the local probation boards. Following standard accounting practice, local boards pension contributions are not fully reflected in these figures.
3. Prior to 2001-02 resource figures are based on the expenditure implied by the main grant cash limit plus an allowance for probation hostels and for consistency, an estimate has been used for central expenditure by the sponsoring unit in the Home Office.
|4. All figures exclude Electronic Monitoring and contributions to the Department of Health for the pooled treatment budget related to drug rehabilitation.|
5. Figures for 2007-08 are planned expenditure.
6. Comparisons over a long period of time are difficult due to machinery of government changes and accounting methodology changes.