Written Answers to Questions
Monday 23 February 2009
Church Commissioners
Redundant Churches
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) of 22 July 2008, Official Report, column 983W, on redundant churches, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the reasons for churches being closed for regular public worship. [256413]
Sir Stuart Bell: Decisions to propose closure for regular public worship are taken within each diocese and the Commissioners have made no specific assessment of the reasons behind such decisions. Where objections are received, the Commissioners consider whether there is a pastoral need for the church. On average, between 25 and 30 churches are closed each year; this is in the context of over 16,000 churches in use, including a number of new places of worship opening each year.
Religious Buildings: Water Charges
Ben Chapman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners whether the Church Commissioners plan to take steps to implement the resolution of the General Synod on church water rates; and if he will make a statement. [257843]
Sir Stuart Bell: The General Synod motion urged the Government to press Ofwat to ensure that water companies did not treat places of worship as if they were businesses and, as my hon. Friend will note from my remarks on the Floor of the House on 5 February 2009, Official Report, columns 971-72, I fully support the position taken by General Synod.
I might add by way of a statement that the Archbishops Council will take the lead in the Church’s ongoing discussions with Government on this matter and it will do so not only with General Synod’s support but also the support of the Church Commissioners, the wider Church, other charitable bodies, a good many Members of Parliament and, it seems, an increasing proportion of the general public.
House of Commons Commission
Palace of Westminster: Pedestrian Access
Mr. Amess:
To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission with reference to the answer of 6 November 2006, Official Report, column 671W, on pedestrian access, what progress has been made in ensuring that pedestrian access to the Palace of Westminster is not impeded by
inadequate rainwater drainage on St. Margaret's Street; when the House of Commons Commission last discussed this issue with Westminster City Council; what response was received; on how many occasions since December 2008 pedestrian access to the Palace of Westminster has been impeded by rainwater; and if he will make a statement. [256726]
Nick Harvey: A record is not kept of the number of times pedestrian access to the Palace of Westminster has been impeded by rainwater. The drainage gully on St. Margaret Street adjacent to St. Stephen's Entrance is blocked regularly with rubbish and detritus and Westminster city council arrange for it to be cleared when flooding is causing a nuisance. Further representations will be made to the council to increase the frequency of cleaning in this location and to explore whether the gully can be covered to reduce the likelihood of future blockage. There have been no discussions on this subject between the House of Commons Commission and Westminster city council.
Parliament: Repairs and Maintenance
Mr. Amess: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission how many repairs have been required to the fabric and installations of each building on the Parliamentary Estate in each year since 1990; and what the estimated total cost was for each building. [248141]
Nick Harvey: A list of the repairs to the fabric and installations of each building on the parliamentary estate has been placed in the Library. Information on the number of repairs is available back to 2000, and on the cost of repairs back to 2005-06.
Working Conditions: Temperature
Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what the (a) highest and (b) lowest temperature measured in the Churchill Room and nearby areas during working hours were between November 2008 and January 2009; what steps are taken in exceptionally cold weather to provide additional heating in the House, with particular reference to the Churchill Room; and what recent representations have been made by (i) House staff and (ii) customers about the temperature in the Churchill Room. [257381]
Nick Harvey: The highest temperature recorded in the Churchill Room—on numerous occasions—between November 2008 and January 2009 was 21 degrees centigrade. The lowest temperature during the same period was 17 degrees centigrade on 12 January 2009. The prevailing weather conditions are monitored by House engineers and the heating system adjusted accordingly to maintain temperatures at acceptable levels. Since November 2008, two requests have been recorded on the estates helpdesk about cool temperatures in the Churchill Room, on 20 November 2008 and 4 February 2009. Work has taken place during the February constituency week to replace the heating and ventilation controls for the Churchill Room and further work will take place in the Easter recess.
Jo Swinson: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission what temperature range is deemed acceptable by the House authorities for staff to work in. [257382]
Nick Harvey: The statutory minimum temperature for office environments is 16°C. There is no statutory upper limit. In line with Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) guidance the House aims to maintain temperatures of 21°C in office areas.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Agriculture: Subsidies
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to assist agricultural producers affected by the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. [256935]
Jane Kennedy: The Animal Health Act 1981 and Human Rights legislation require that compensation is paid for animals compulsorily killed to prevent the spread of disease. For foot and mouth disease (FMD), compensation is paid for all animals compulsorily slaughtered at the full market value before the animal became infected. Compensation is also paid for other items, such as farm equipment and feed etc. which are seized as they are considered to be contaminated. This includes such things as milk. The amount of compensation payable for animals for FMD is determined by an approved valuer at the time of slaughter.
Animal Welfare
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) incidents of animal cruelty have been reported and (b) people have been charged with offences of animal cruelty in (i) England, (ii) the North East, (iii) the Tees Valley and (iv) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency in each of the last 10 years. [254890]
Jane Kennedy: The number of people proceeded against at magistrates courts for animal cruelty in (a) England, (b) the north-east, and (c) Cleveland police force area for the years 1998 to 2007 (latest available) can be viewed in the table.
Charging data are not held by Ministry of Justice, therefore data on cases proceeded against have been provided in lieu.
Crimes relating to cruelty to animals are summary offences and thus reported cases of animal cruelty are not included in the police recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office.
Court data are not collected centrally at constituency level; thus Cleveland police force area data have been provided in lieu of (c) Tees Valley, and (d) Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland constituency.
These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
Court proceedings data for 2008 will be available in the autumn of 2009.
| Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for animal cruelty in Cleveland police force area, north-east region, and England for the years 1998 to 2007( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | ||||||||||
| Proceeded against | ||||||||||
| Force/Area | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
| (1) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. (2 )Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. (3) Staffordshire police force were able to submit sample data only for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table. (4) The north-east region comprises the following police force areas: Northumbria Durham Cleveland. (5) Crimes relating to cruelty to animals are summary offences and are therefore not included within the police recorded crime series. Police recorded crime covers crimes which are recorded by the police and which are notified to the Home Office. All indictable or triable-either-way offences are included together with certain closely associated summary offences. | ||||||||||
Birds
Ms Angela C. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 27 January 2009, Official Report, column 320W, on birds, about what elements of the report there were uncertainties; what the reasons are for the time taken to resolve such uncertainties; and whether the contract made provision for financial penalties for late or sub-standard delivery. [253683]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Queries about the nature, reliability and robustness of the information reported, have delayed publication of this report. These queries included the extent to which conclusions in the report were supported by reliable evidence, and whether individuals named in the report had agreed to the inclusion of their names.
The report was reviewed with the authors five times as a consequence of officials raising questions about its content. While the authors of the report acted as promptly as possible, delays did occur due to the difficulties of verification of data with third parties overseas, or as key personnel were not available temporarily.
While the contract did allow for penalties none were imposed because at the time, March/April 2008, the report was believed to be reasonably correct. Most of the concerns about the style and content of the report only came to light subsequently, and the contractor then undertook the necessary additional work.
Charities: Waste Disposal
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which charities have been prosecuted under the waste management duty of care provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and how much revenue has been collected from fines resulting from such prosecutions. [256403]
Jane Kennedy: DEFRA does not hold the information requested. Recorded details on prosecutions do not identify the type of business or organisation.
Departmental Buildings
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Display Energy Certificate has been produced for each of his Department's buildings. [252630]
Huw Irranca-Davies: I can confirm that Display Energy Certificates (DECs) have been produced for the 39 DEFRA properties meeting the requirements of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.
Departmental Pay
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on staff reward and recognition schemes in each of the last three years. [248712]
Huw Irranca-Davies: DEFRA and its Executive agencies operate a number of different non-financial reward and recognition schemes for staff (excludes bonus schemes) at grade 6 equivalent and below.
These provide DEFRA and its agencies with the flexibility to recognise and reward their employees, with small/symbolic awards.
Details of the costs associated with each scheme are outlined as follows:
DEFRA Team Awards (including Executive agencies)
The DEFRA Team Awards identify and celebrate success across DEFRA and its agencies.
Each year an annual awards dinner and ceremony is held, to which short-listed teams from across DEFRA are invited.
The winning teams in each category receive a certificate of congratulations and are awarded a trophy, made from recycled materials, that has no commercial value.
The cost of staging the event in each of the last three years are given in the following table.
| £ | |
‘Achieving the Best’—Animal Health (AH), DEFRA Executive agency
‘Achieving the Best’ is the agency’s scheme for recognising and rewarding good performance and long service at local and agency-wide level.
The scheme was introduced on 1 April 2007.
There are two recognition and reward schemes that operate under the ‘Achieving the Best’ scheme:
the Animal Health Instant Award; and
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |