12 Feb 2009 : Column 17MC 12 Feb 2009 : Column 17MC
Ministerial Corrections
Thursday 12 February 2009
International Development
International Conferences
Mr. Moore:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which (a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department will attend the forthcoming Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative Global Conference on establishing resource transparency; what his Department's objectives for the conference are; and if he will make a statement. [252866]
An error has been identified in the written answer given to right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), Official Report, 3 February 2009. The figures cited for the funds committed to the EITI were incorrect. The correct answer should have been:
Mr. Michael Foster:
The UK Government have been a leading supporter of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). DFID has committed over £14 million to EITI and has so far provided over £8 million of this since November 2002. Increasing transparency and knowledge of revenues from the extractive sector empowers citizens to hold Governments to account, so that mismanagement of funds away from sustainable development purposes becomes more difficult. In line with the EITI Global Conference’s objectives, we will work with other stakeholders to take stock of EITI’s progress; to address the challenges which EITI faces; to consider the next steps for taking forward the initiative.
The composition of the UK’s delegation to the EITI Global Conference is yet to be finalised.
12 Feb 2009 : Column 18MC
Children, Schools and Families
Children in Care: Foster Care
Tim Loughton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families how many children in care in each local authority area have had more than (a) three, (b) five, (c) 10, (d) 20 and (e) 30 foster placements. [251849]
An error has been identified in the written answer to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), Official Report, 3 February 2009. My email of 9 February alerted the hon. Member to data errors in the answer my Department gave. I am now writing to provide the hon. Member with the revised figures.
I am assured by officials that these figures are now correct. Quality assurance procedures have been reviewed and improved to ensure that the chances of this happening again are minimised.
The revised tables are published below. The effect of the correction has been to reduce substantially the number of looked-after children who have a number of foster placements during the year.
A copy of my response will be placed in the Library.
Once again, please accept my apology on behalf of myself and officials in the Department.
The correct answer is as follows:
Beverley Hughes:
Information showing the number of children in care in each local authority that have had more than (a) three, (b) five, (c) 10, (d) 20 and (e) 30 foster placements in England during the year ending 31 March 2008 is shown in the following table.
Number of looked after children at 31 March by foster placement s during the , yea r( 1,2,3) Year ending 31 March 2008—Coverage: England
Number of placements
More than 3
More than 5
More than 10
More than 20
More than 30
England
1,100
200
10
-
0
North East
60
-
-
0
0
Darlington
-
0
0
0
0
Durham
10
-
0
0
0
Gateshead
0
0
0
0
0
Hartlepool
5
-
0
0
0
Middlesbrough
-
-
0
0
0
Newcastle Upon Tyne
-
0
0
0
0
North Tyneside
5
0
0
0
0
Northumberland
5
0
0
0
0
Redcar and Cleveland
-
0
0
0
0
South Tyneside
-
0
0
0
0
Stockton-on-Tees
-
0
0
0
0
Sunderland
-
-
-
0
0
North West
140
20
-
0
0
Blackburn with Darwen
-
0
0
0
0
Blackpool
-
-
0
0
0
Bolton
10
-
0
0
0
Bury
5
-
0
0
0
Cheshire
10
-
0
0
0
12 Feb 2009 : Column 19MC
12 Feb 2009 : Column 20MC
Cumbria
10
-
0
0
0
Halton
0
0
0
0
0
Knowsley
-
-
-
0
0
Lancashire
25
-
0
0
0
Liverpool
15
-
0
0
0
Manchester
20
-
0
0
0
Oldham
-
0
0
0
0
Rochdale
-
0
0
0
0
Salford
-
0
0
0
0
Sefton
-
-
0
0
0
St. Helens
-
0
0
0
0
Stockport
-
-
0
0
0
Tameside
-
-
0
0
0
Trafford
5
0
0
0
0
Warrington
10
0
0
0
0
Wigan
-
0
0
0
0
Wirral
5
-
0
0
0
Yorkshire and the Humber
110
30
-
0
0
Barnsley
10
0
0
0
0
Bradford
10
-
0
0
0
Calderdale
-
-
0
0
0
Doncaster
10
-
0
0
0
East Riding of Yorkshire
5
-
0
0
0
Kingston upon Hull, City of
15
-
0
0
0
Kirklees
5
0
0
0
0
Leeds
20
10
-
0
0
North East Lincolnshire
-
-
0
0
0
North Lincolnshire
-
0
0
0
0
North Yorkshire
10
-
0
0
0
Rotherham
-
0
0
0
0
Sheffield
-
0
0
0
0
Wakefield
-
-
0
0
0
York
-
-
0
0
0
East Midlands
70
10
0
0
0
Derby
5
0
0
0
0
Derbyshire
10
-
0
0
0
Leicester
-
0
0
0
0
Leicestershire
-
-
0
0
0
Lincolnshire
10
-
0
0
0
Northamptonshire
15
-
0
0
0
Nottingham
-
-
0
0
0
Nottinghamshire
10
-
0
0
0
Rutland
0
0
0
0
0
West Midlands
160
20
-
0
0
Birmingham
40
-
0
0
0
Coventry
5
0
0
0
0
Dudley
10
0
0
0
0
Herefordshire
-
-
0
0
0
Sandwell
-
0
0
0
0
Shropshire
-
-
0
0
0
Solihull
-
0
0
0
0
Staffordshire
20
5
-
0
0
Stoke-on-Trent
5
-
0
0
0
Telford and Wrekin
-
0
0
0
0
Walsall
10
-
0
0
0
Warwickshire
30
5
0
0
0
Wolverhampton
5
-
0
0
0
Worcestershire
10
-
0
0
0
12 Feb 2009 : Column 21MC
12 Feb 2009 : Column 22MC
East of England
100
10
0
0
0
Bedfordshire
-
0
0
0
0
Cambridgeshire
-
-
0
0
0
Essex
25
-
0
0
0
Hertfordshire
10
0
0
0
0
Luton
10
-
0
0
0
Norfolk
15
0
0
0
0
Peterborough
10
0
0
0
0
Southend-on-Sea
10
-
0
0
0
Suffolk
10
-
0
0
0
Thurrock
-
-
0
0
0
London
160
40
-
0
0
Inner London
75
10
-
0
0
Camden
5
0
0
0
0
City of London
0
0
0
0
0
Hackney
-
0
0
0
0
Hammersmith and Fulham
-
0
0
0
0
Haringey
-
-
0
0
0
Islington
10
-
0
0
0
Kensington and Chelsea
-
-
-
0
0
Lambeth
5
-
0
0
0
Lewisham
-
0
0
0
0
Newham
15
-
0
0
0
Southwark
5
0
0
0
0
Tower Hamlets
5
0
0
0
0
Wandsworth
-
0
0
0
0
Westminster
-
0
0
0
0
Outer London
90
30
-
0
0
Barking and Dagenham
10
5
0
0
0
Barnet
0
0
0
0
0
Bexley
5
-
0
0
0
Brent
15
-
0
0
0
Bromley
-
0
0
0
0
Croydon
5
-
0
0
0
Ealing
-
0
0
0
0
Enfield
-
-
0
0
0
Greenwich
-
-
0
0
0
Harrow
-
0
0
0
0
Havering
10
-
0
0
0
Hillingdon
10
-
0
0
0
Hounslow
-
-
0
0
0
Kingston upon Thames
-
-
0
0
0
Merton
-
0
0
0
0
Redbridge
-
-
0
0
0
Richmond upon Thames
-
-
0
0
0
Sutton
-
-
-
0
0
Waltham Forest
5
0
0
0
0
South East
160
40
-
0
0
Bracknell Forest
-
0
0
0
0
Brighton and Hove
10
-
0
0
0
Buckinghamshire
0
0
0
0
0
East Sussex
10
-
0
0
0
Hampshire
40
10
-
0
0
Isle of Wight
-
-
0
0
0
Kent
35
10
-
0
0
Medway Towns
5
0
0
0
0
Milton Keynes
10
-
0
0
0
Oxfordshire
-
-
0
0
0
Portsmouth
0
0
0
0
0
12 Feb 2009 : Column 23MC
12 Feb 2009 : Column 24MC
Reading
5
0
0
0
0
Slough
0
0
0
0
0
Southampton
5
-
0
0
0
Surrey
5
0
0
0
0
West Berkshire
-
0
0
0
0
West Sussex
10
-
0
0
0
Windsor and Maidenhead
-
0
0
0
0
Wokingham
-
0
0
0
0
South West
100
20
-
-
0
Bath and North East Somerset
-
0
0
0
0
Bournemouth
-
0
0
0
0
Bristol, City of
15
-
0
0
0
Cornwall
10
-
-
-
0
Devon
-
-
0
0
0
Dorset
5
-
0
0
0
Gloucestershire
10
-
0
0
0
Isles of Scilly
0
0
0
0
0
North Somerset
5
-
0
0
0
Plymouth
15
-
0
0
0
Poole
-
-
0
0
0
Somerset
5
-
0
0
0
South Gloucestershire
-
0
0
0
0
Swindon
-
0
0
0
0
Torbay
10
-
0
0
0
Wiltshire
5
0
0
0
0
(1) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short—term placements. (2 )Based on children looked after at 31 March 2008 and the number of foster placements during the 2007-08 financial year (3) Rounding and suppression—to ensure that no individual can be identified from statistical tables, we use conventions for the rounding and suppression of very small numbers. At local authority level the England totals have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1,000 and to the nearest 10 otherwise. Regional totals have been rounded to the nearest 10. All other numbers have been rounded to the nearest five, and the numbers from 1 to 5 inclusive have been suppressed, being replaced in the published table by a ( -).
