|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those completing participation in the (a) New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal 25 Plus, (c) New Deal 50 Plus, (d) New Deal for Lone Parents, (e) New Deal for Disabled People and (f) New Deal for Partners were doing so for the (i) first, (ii) second, (iii) third, (iv) fourth and (v) fifth or more times in each month since each such programme was established. 
Mr. Timms [holding answer 29 February 2008]: Participants on New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus who are claiming jobseeker's allowance (JSA) are expected to follow a structured routeway through New Deal which they are expected to follow. However, people can leave JSA and thus leave New Deal at any point and there is no strict definition of completing these programmes. People on the four voluntary New Deals can leave them at any point and there is also no definition of completing these programmes.
New Deal repeaters are more likely to enter employment from their second spell on the programme than their first, and from their third spell than their second. Each period on New Deal moves participants closer to the labour market.
Mrs. McGuire: We recognise that osteopathy has the potential to contribute to our welfare reform agenda, in particular by helping incapacity benefit claimants suffering from musculoskeletal disorders to manage or overcome their conditions. However, we currently have no plans to develop specific proposals on the use of osteopathy.
Following receipt of Dame Carol Black's review, "Working for a healthier tomorrow", the Government are currently considering what they need to do more widely to improve the health of the working age population and help more people with health conditions manage their condition and retain or move into work. A formal response to this review is planned for later in the year.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) disabled and (b) non-disabled employees of closed Remploy factories have (i) been placed in sheltered employment, (ii) been placed in mainstream employment, (iii) taken voluntary redundancy pay and (iv) taken compulsory redundancy pay. 
Mrs. McGuire: At 10 April 2008, nine disabled employees of Remploy have been placed in sheltered employment. 185 disabled employees have opted to stay on Remploy terms and conditions in mainstream employment. To date 11 disabled employees have been placed into permanent work, 33 disabled employees have been placed into work trials which should lead to a permanent job and six disabled employees are currently in training. Remploy is working actively with the other employees to assist them into mainstream employment.
349 disabled employees opted for early retirement with voluntary redundancy. 630 disabled employees took voluntary redundancy, but were too young to retire. Around 104 of these have already found new jobs in mainstream employment. There were no compulsory redundancies for disabled people as part of the modernisation programme.
No non disabled employees have been placed at a sheltered workshop or placed by Remploy into mainstream employment. 98 non disabled employees took compulsory redundancy. None took voluntary redundancy.
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the decision to close the Wisbech Remploy factory was taken; who took the decision; what effect on his Departments expenditure there will be as a result of the closure; and what the estimated site value of the factory is. 
Mrs. McGuire: All 11 employees and the Manager at the Wisbech Remploy factory volunteered for redundancy. In the absence of any quality work for the factory the company accepted the redundancy applications. Remploy advised stakeholders on 25 February that the Wisbech factory would close.
There will be no effect on the Departments planned expenditure of £555 million over the five years of the modernisation plan, as a result of the closure. The site has no commercial value to Remploy because it is on short term rental from the local council.
Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals in recognised polygamous marriages were claiming state benefits in the latest period for which figures are available, broken down by type of benefit. 
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking what proportion of children lived in workless households in each year since 2005. 
Estimates are provided from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). There are currently no annual household datasets available, so the figures are given for the April-June quarter to be consistent with those published in the 'Work and worklessness among household First Release' (see web link
The proportion of children in UK working-age workless households was 15.8 per cent. in 2005, 15.6 per cent. in 2006 and 15.9 per cent. in 2007.
The data on the proportion of children living in UK working-age workless households from 1997 can be found at the following we link
The household datasets (like the main quarterly LFS microdatasets) are weighted to the population estimates published by ONS in February and March 2003. They do not incorporate the more recent population estimates used in the headline LFS series.
A workless household is defined as a household that includes at least one person of working-age (a woman aged 16 to 59 or a man aged 16 to 64) where no-one aged 16 or over is in employment.
The LFS is a sample survey covering over 52,000 households in the United Kingdom in each three month period. As with any sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey are subject to a margin of uncertainty.
Mr. Straw: The offences created, and the offences which have been repealed, in primary legislation sponsored by my Department, are contained in the following table. This includes the offences in Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act, although the legislation as a whole was sponsored by the Home Office. Some of the legislation is not yet in force. There is some additional information about offences, which due to an oversight, was not included in my answer to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on 10 March 2008, Official Report, columns 163-65W. I am writing to the right hon. Member about this.
|Act of Parliament||Date of Royal Assent||Offence(s) created||Offences repealed|
Carrying on a reserved legal activity if not entitled, or through a person not entitled; Pretending to be entitled to carry out a reserved legal activity; Pretending to be a Barrister; Failing to identify a non-authorised person in a licence application or when that information becomes available; notifying anon-authorised person of the disclosure; Knowingly providing false information or documents to a licensing authority; Breaching duty of notification to a licensing authority; Failing to comply with a Notice Prohibiting Payment; Failing to comply with a notice to produce or deliver documents; Falsifying, Concealing destroying or disposing of documents or causing that offence; Knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information; Failing to comply with an Order made by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal.
Doing any act in the purported exercise of any right granted to an authorised practitioner when not an authorised practitioner; Unauthorised person acting as a notary for gain; Unqualified person drawing or preparing any instrument relating to real or personal estate or lodging any document for land registration; Unqualified person drawing up instruments or taking instructions for grant of probate or administration for a fee; Commencing a prosecution or defending an action for bankruptcy while in jail; Contravening rules about qualification of partnerships and bodies corporate; Intentionally altering, suppressing or destroying documents required by the OFT; Breaching conditions of control or publicity within the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Unauthorised use or disclosure of debtor information; Purporting to act as an enforcement agent without being authorised; Intentionally obstructing a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent; Intentionally interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many people were convicted of driving while impaired through drugs or other substances, excluding alcohol, in (a) Chorley borough and (b) Lancashire in 2006-07; 
Maria Eagle: Within the Lancashire police force area in 2005 (latest available) there were 2,723 findings of guilt at all courts for offences of driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs. 2006 data will be available later this year; 2007 in 2009.
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 1 April 2008, Official Report, columns 890-2W, on drugs, what the average custodial sentence given to those convicted of dealing (a) heroin, (b) cocaine, (c) LSD, (d) ecstasy and (e) cannabis was in each of the last five years. 
|Average determinate custodial sentence length( 1) for persons sentenced to immediate custody for supplying a controlled drug, all courts, England and Wales, 2002 to 2006 England and Wales|
|Average custodial sentence length (months)|
|(1) Excludes life and indeterminate sentences. (2) In January 2004 Cannabis was reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug. Notes: 1. All figures are for the offences of supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug and for having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply. 2. These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems. Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Source: Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice 22 April 2008.|
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether his Department provides health or social care services out of public funds, with reference to the Statement by the Minister of State, Department of Health, in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, of 17 January 2008, Official Report, column 327. 
Maria Eagle: The Ministry of Justice does not provide any such services directly. However, contracted prisons are provided with a single contract price to provide all the services specified in their contract. This includes health services. Similarly, it is a requirement in contracts with providers of secure training centres and places in secure children's homes that these providers commission health services.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|