| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The following NDPBs and other bodies have reported that they have incurred no expenditure with public relations agencies in the period in question:
Disability Employment Advisory Committee
Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
Equality 2025
Industrial Injuries Advisory Council
Personal Accounts Delivery Authority
Pensions Ombudsman
Social Security Advisory Committee
Pensions Protection Fund Ombudsman
The Pensions Advisory Service
Working Ventures UK
Motability
Independent Review Service for the Social Fund
The Disability Rights Commission, which was referred to in the March 2006 question, was dissolved from September 2007 and its paper and electronic records have been archived. The Department would incur disproportionate cost in accessing these records to obtain the required information.
Health
Drugs: Rehabilitation
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the reasons are for the nine per cent. reduction in the pooled treatment budget for Milton Keynes from the National Treatment Agency in 2009-10; [280678]
(2) what funding has been given to Milton Keynes from the National Treatment Agency in each of the last five years; and how much has been so allocated in the next two years; [280679]
(3) how many problematic drug users (a) there were in Milton Keynes and (b) received treatment in Milton Keynes in each of the last five years. [280680]
[Official Report, 30 June 2009, Vol. 495, c. 212- 13 W.]
Letter of correction from Gillian Merron:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) on 30 June 2009. I am sorry that the figures given in the second table were incorrect.
The correct answer should have been:
Gillian Merron: Until 2008-09 the pooled treatment budget (PTB) was allocated against a basket of indicators of social and economic deprivation known to reflect drug use as the best available proxy of treatment need. As a result of differences in performance between drug partnerships in getting people into treatment this funding formula was resulting in unjustifiable variations in the amount of central subvention for each person's treatment.
2009-10 is the second year of a process which seeks to produce a fairer allocation system which more accurately matches need, activity and resources.
The new process is based on three elements:
25 per cent. of the allocation is based on the indicators underpinning the previous formula to reflect the differential cost of responding to different levels of complex need such as homelessness, mental heath, family breakdown and unemployment;
75 per cent. is based on activity in the treatment system with areas being allocated a set amount per person treated effectively; and
The final element is an area cost adjustment figure to reflect the varying costs of delivering services in different part of the country.
To promote an orderly alteration to service planning, the change is being introduced over three years with the annual maximum reduction set at 5 per cent. in 2008-09, 15 per cent. in 2009-10 and 30 per cent. in 2010-11.
Funding allocated to Milton Keynes in each of the last five years is as follows:
| £ | |
For the next two years, the indicative amount for 2010-11 is £925,000 (announced January 2008). This however was based on performance at the time predicted to grow at 1 per cent. a year. Growth in Milton Keynes is currently anticipated to be in excess of this so the final allocation may increase. The exact allocation will not be known until January 2010.
Based on data collected by the University of Glasgow covering the period 2004-05 to 2006-07, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse have advised Milton Keynes that an estimated 930 problematic drug users (PDUs) should be used for planning purposes. However, there are insufficient data on the number of PDUs to determine how the PDU population has changed over time.
The number of problematic drug users in treatment in Milton Keynes is only available for the last four years and is as follows:
| Number | |
Northern Ireland
Departmental Public Consultation
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have been carried out by his Department since July 2007; and at what cost. [279345]
[Official Report, 20 July 2009, Vol. 496, c. 784W.]
Letter of correction from Shaun Woodward:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 20 July 2009. It has come to my attention that two further consultations (both with a nil cost) were not included in the original table.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr. Woodward: Since July 2007 my Department, excluding agencies and non-departmental public bodies, conducted the consultations set out in the following table. The table includes the cost where applicable.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sri Lanka: International Assistance
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the International Monetary Fund on the proposed emergency loan package to the Sri Lankan government; and if he will make a statement. [288634]
[Official Report, 21 July 2009, Vol. 496, c. 1259-60W.]
Letter of correction from Stephen Timms:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 21 July 2009. The full answer given was as follows:
Mr. Timms: I have been asked to reply.
The Government are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka and are also committed to helping Sri Lanka avoid an economic crisis that would impact most on Sri Lanka's poor.
The Chancellor is in close contact with the IMF and with ministerial colleagues, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development.
The International Monetary Fund has not yet presented a programme for Sri Lanka. Once a programme is presented, it will be assessed on its merits and the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka at the time.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr. Timms: I have been asked to reply.
The Government are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka and are also committed
to helping Sri Lanka avoid an economic crisis that would impact most on Sri Lanka's poor.
The Chancellor is in close contact with the IMF and with ministerial colleagues, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development.
The IMF has presented a programme for Sri Lanka to be considered by the IMF board. The Chancellor is assessing the programme
| Index | Home Page |