| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Jun 2008 : Column 551W—continued
Housing: Low Incomes
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average length of time to process a (a) Home2own, (b) Homebuy and (c) first time buyer’s initiative application was in the last 12 months. [201571]
Caroline Flint: We do not hold data centrally on the average length of time it takes to process a Home2own, HomeBuy and First-Time Buyer’s Initiative application in the last 12 months. This can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
HomeBuy Agents who administer the HomeBuy scheme and the First-Time Buyer’s Initiative are required to send applicants confirmation of their eligibility status
within eight working days of initial receipt of a fully completed application form.
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many applications there were to (a) Home2own, (b) Homebuy and (c) the First-time Buyers initiative in each year since each was established. [201651]
Caroline Flint [holding answer 25 April 2008]: We do not hold data centrally on the number of applications that have been received by Home2own, HomeBuy and First-Time Buyer's initiative, since each scheme was established. This can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
Local Government Finance: Lancashire
Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what central Government grant financing to (a) Hyndburn Borough Council and (b) Rossendale Borough Council was in each year from 2002-03 to 2008-09. [210062]
John Healey: The central Government grant financing to Hyndburn borough council and Rossendale borough council from 2002-03 to 2008-09 is shown in the following table.
| £000 | ||
| Hyndburn borough council | Rossendale Borough Council | |
| Note: Budget figures can differ from outturn figures because not all grants are known with certainty at the beginning of the financial year. Source: Communities and Local Government Revenue Outturn (RO) and Revenue Account (RA) budget returns | ||
Central Government grant financing is defined here as the sum of Formula grant (Revenue Support Grant and redistributed non-domestic rates) and Specific grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF), ie revenue grants paid for a council’s core services.
Figures exclude grants outside AEF (ie where funding is not for an authority’s core services, but is passed to a third party, for example, rent allowances and rebates), capital grants, funding for the local authority’s housing management responsibilities and those grant programmes (such as European funding) where an authority is simply one of the recipients of funding paid towards an area.
Comparisons across years may not be valid owing to changing local authority responsibilities.
Regional Planning and Development
James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the budget for the implementation of the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration is. [210616]
John Healey: There is no separate budget for the implementation of the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration. Full details of the Department's expenditure in 2007-08 can be found in Annex B to its 2008 Annual Report: ‘Community, Opportunity, Prosperity’ (Cm 3794).
Regional Planning and Development: Finance
James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much has been spent on implementing the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration (a) in total and (b) for (i) staffing costs, (ii) administrative costs, (iii) communication costs and (iv) the costs of public consultation. [210617]
John Healey: Given the wide-ranging nature of the proposals contained in the review, much of the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The consultation document ‘Prosperous Places: Taking Forward the Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration’ includes an impact assessment of the potential cost of the proposed local authority economic assessment duty, and further assessments will be carried out of the impact of the legislation the Government intend to bring forward.
The costs of public consultation incurred to date have been:
| £ | |
These costs have been shared between this Department and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
Culture, Media and Sport
Departmental Public Participation
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department spent on (a) written consultations, (b) consultation roadshows and (c) stakeholder focus groups in each of the last three years. [205840]
Margaret Hodge: The information requested is as follows:
(a) The expenditure on written consultations in each of the last three years is as follows:
The 1954 Hague convention on the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and its two protocols of 1954 and 1999
The BBC Charter Review Green Paper—A strong BBC, independent of Government
Consultation paper on a cultural test for British Films
National lottery shares 2009 consultation
Review of the Marine Historic Environment Working Groups
Total cost: £38,610
Welcome Legacy: A Tourism Strategy for the 2012 Games—a consultation
Understanding the Future: Priorities for England's Museums
Heritage Protection for the 21st Century—White Paper
Review of the Marine Historic Environment Working Groups
Total cost: £54,579
All consultations web-based
Cost: £ zero spend
(b) No consultation roadshows have been held in the last three years.
(c) The spend on stakeholder focus groups in each of the last three years is as follows:
BBC Charter Review: Focus on the BBC Trust and the enforcement and collection of the licence fee
Attitudes towards allocation of lottery funds to arts and film, heritage and sport
Heritage Protection Review seminars
Total cost: £94,279
Cost : £ zero spend
Cost: £ zero spend
Cost: £ zero spend
Defence
Armoured Fighting Vehicles
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Piranha V vehicles have been built and subjected to mine explosion tests of the type to which US candidates for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected programme have been exposed; and if he will publish the results. [208678]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth:
The FRES Utility Vehicle protection requirements include those based upon latest Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and mine explosion threat assessments. The down selection of Piranha 5 as the provisionally preferred design for the FRES Utility Vehicle included an assessment of the current design and the ability to develop the design to meet the FRES protection requirements. Subject to Piranha 5 being
confirmed as the preferred design, further work will be undertaken during the demonstration phase to confirm that Piranha 5 protection capabilities will meet the FRES requirement. This will include actual IED and mine explosion tests. None of the results of these assessments will be published as their disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of our armed forces and commercial interests.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of (a) CRVT, (b) Saxon, (c) Warrior and (d) Challenger vehicles are (i) in service, (ii) fit for purpose and (iii) out of service. [209573]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The information requested is set out in the following table.
| In service (total fleet) | Fit for purpose (currently available) (percentage) | Out of service (not available) (percentage) | |
‘In service’ has been defined as the total number in the vehicle fleet. ‘Fit for purpose’ has been defined as those that are available for use. This includes vehicles awaiting minor repairs and those currently in transit to operational theatres. ‘Out of service’ has been defined as those vehicles within the total fleet that are currently unavailable, including vehicles undergoing major repair, planned re-fit or awaiting a decision on disposal. This category includes vehicles destroyed on operations.
Mr. Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the interoperability of the Future Rapid Effects System and the equivalent capabilities of other European countries. [210169]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The MOD has provisionally selected Piranha as the preferred FRES Utility Vehicle design. Our assessment is that Piranha 5 has the potential to meet the programme's interoperability requirements. This includes the requirement to be interoperable with NATO and other allies.
In the future, selection of designs to meet the requirements of the other vehicle families will similarly take account of interoperability.
Mr. Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the most recent planned in-service date for the Future Rapid Effects System is. [210170]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: In common with all defence equipment programmes, the in-service dates for the Future Rapid Effect System family of armoured vehicles will be fixed at the main investment decisions. It is our policy not to release or discuss in-service dates ahead of the main investment decision.
Mr. Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions have taken place with General Dynamics on where the Future Rapid Effects System will be assembled; [210171]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |