Written Answers to Questions
Monday 12 January 2009
Leader of the House
Members: Allowances
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Leader of the House pursuant to the answer of 5 November 2008, Official Report, column 461W, on hon. Members: allowances, (1) what criteria govern the circumstances under which hon. Members may ask for an advance from the 2009-10 communication allowance allocation; [246729]
(2) from what date hon. Members will be able to ask for a communication allowance advance from the year 2010-11. [246730]
Chris Bryant: The rules on advances of the communications allowance are as set out in the House booklet “The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery” and the Green Book.
Members who wish to make use of an advance of the allowance must contact the Department of Resources which considers all requests on their merit. In broad terms, any advance of money from a future year should be no more than 10 per cent. of the allowance and be to meet a non-recurring expenditure item.
Members must also demonstrate that they will be able to manage within the reduced cash ceiling in the following year and consent to the recovery of any advances from their salary or the resettlement grant if they cease to be a Member and their allowances are overspent.
To date no advance from the communications allowance for 2009-10 has been requested this year nor were any advances made last year.
Members: Pensions
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Leader of the House what procedures will be applied to over-payments of pensions to former hon. Members. [246276]
Chris Bryant: A variety of factors contributed to a significant number of pension payment errors by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) related to the application of the guaranteed minimum pension (GMP). These errors included payment of pension increases at the wrong level and payment of increases too early.
In 2006 the Chairman of the PCPF Trustees and the Leader of the House agreed to an independent person being appointed to advise on the handling of the overpayments, so as to ensure that the approach adopted was fair and consistent and in line with the best practice on the recovery of overpayments of public money.
The independent adviser recommended that full recovery action be taken for all overpayments made within the last six years, apart from:
overpayments of less than £500, unless the scheme member agreed to repay the monies voluntarily;
overpayments made to members who had since died and whose estates had been settled; and
other cases where legal considerations supported non-recovery.
All future payments to scheme members were corrected.
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Leader of the House how much has been overpaid on pensions to former hon. Members during the last three financial years; what the reasons were for this overpayment; and whether the amount overpaid will be recovered from recipients. [246277]
Chris Bryant: A variety of factors contributed to a significant number of pension payment errors by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF) related to the application of the guaranteed minimum pension (GMP). These errors included payment of pension increases at the wrong level and payment of increases too early.
Over more than 10 years, overpayments totalling some £402,000 were made to 177 scheme members, pensioners and widow(er)s.
87 scheme members were asked to make repayments, totalling some £185,000.
Some £253,000 has been written off, which includes a small proportion of the sum originally identified as recoverable.
Church Commissioners
Churches: Water Charges
Mr. Pickles: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the aggregate effect of new water charges on the finances of Church of England churches. [245924]
Sir Stuart Bell: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman) on 11 December 2008, Official Report, column 671, it is estimated that the new charges will cost Church of England churches and cathedrals around £5 million or more per annum. In addition, churches using the public sewers will also be liable for highways drainage contributions at an estimated cost of £10 million per annum.
Electoral Commission Committee
Local Government: Reorganisation
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission on what grounds the Boundary Committee for England decides which bodies it is prepared to meet during its consultations on local government structural reviews. [244853]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that when carrying out a review the Boundary Committee for England organises a series of roundtable discussions to which it invites the county council, the district councils, the parish and town councils in the county and other bodies who currently work closely with local government and who the committee considers would have views on how any future unitary pattern of local government could work.
The Commission further informs me that the committee also uses stakeholder lists provided by the councils in order to help identify other individuals, organisations and businesses.
Local Government: Suffolk
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission on what grounds Forest Heath district council, Waveney district council and St. Edmundsbury borough council have been refused a meeting with the Boundary Committee for England during the consultation period for local government structural review in Suffolk. [244854]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that at stages one and two of the review process the Boundary Committee arranged a series of meetings, both collectively and individually, with local authorities in Suffolk in which representatives from Forest Heath district council, Waveney district council and St. Edmundsbury borough council participated.
The Commission further informs me that it is the committee's policy to decline meeting requests from local authorities to discuss schemes not included in the committee's draft report.
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what assessment he has made of whether the consultation process undertaken by the Boundary Committee for England in regard to the structural review of local government in Suffolk has so far met all the criteria set out in the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation to date. [244855]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that the consultation carried out by the Boundary Committee has met all the criteria set out in the Cabinet Office code of practice.
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what his policy is on whether the Boundary Committee for England's structural review of Suffolk local government should consider the views of the general public in the form of petitions as evidence in its deliberations. [244856]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that the Boundary Committee will consider the views of all those who make representations to it, including those in the form of a petition.
However, the Commission also informs me that the guidance from the Secretary of State to which the committee must have regard states that
“the volume of representations for or against a proposal should not of itself be considered to provide a definitive view of that proposal's merits”.
Mr. Spring: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission how much money the local government structural review in Suffolk has cost to date; how much of those costs are in respect of (a) the salaries of those conducting, (b) consultation and (c) other costs. [244857]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that the structural review in Suffolk has to date cost £218,757. This can be broken down into the following areas of expenditure:
| £ | |
| Category of expenditure | |
Policy Advisers
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what expert advisers have been commissioned by the Electoral Commission since its inception; on what topic each was commissioned; and whether the adviser so appointed made a declaration of political activity in each case. [246967]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that where records are available this information is presented in the following tables. The process for engaging expert advisers was centralised in mid-September 2008 and therefore the records are complete only from this point forward.
The Electoral Commission further informs me that there is no statutory restriction on engaging expert advisers based on political activity. However, given the nature of some of the work expert advisers may be asked to undertake the Commission has since mid-September 2008 required all such advisers to complete a declaration of political activity. Prior to mid-September 2008 declarations of political activity were only required of some expert advisers.
Political Parties: Finance
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what assessment the Electoral Commission has made of the proposals in the Political Parties and Elections Bill that political parties and other donees must take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the new declarations for donations over £200; and what assessment the Commission has made of the accuracy of the accompanying Ministry of Justice impact assessment on the issue. [246735]
Sir Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission informs me that the requirement for donation recipients to take all reasonable steps to verify declarations was deleted by Government amendments during the Public Bill Committee on the Political Parties and Elections Bill.
Children, Schools and Families
Academies: Finance
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what he expects the level of revenue spending for (a) 11 to 16 provision and (b) 16 to 19 provision in school academies to be each year from 2008-09 to 2010-11; and if he will make a statement. [245600]
Jim Knight: It is not possible to disaggregate 11-16 spend on academies from other age ranges without disproportionate expenditure. The following table provides the details of the current level of the academies revenue budget each year from 2008-09 to 2010-11, and identifies specifically the sums within that budget transferred from the Department's 16-19 budget (which is mostly paid to the Learning and Skills Council at present) for sixth form provision. However, the sixth form figure excludes certain academies (former City Technology Colleges) never funded by the LSC.
The table is based on 55 academy openings in 2009 and 2010. As a result of the National Challenge, the number of actual openings will be greater, but are not yet fixed—although there are likely to be around 80 in 2009. Resources devoted to academies in 2009-10 and 2010-11 will rise accordingly, including the amounts
transferred from the 16-19 budget and amounts recouped from local authority allocations of dedicated schools grant, as well as additions from the National Challenge budget for set-up costs.
| £ million | |||
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |