Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the effect on the size of the prison population of the implementation of the provisions of the Drugs Act 2005. 
Nick Herbert [holding answer 6 September 2010]: Between 2005 and 2008 the number of immediate custodial sentences under the Drugs Act 2005 was 12, imposed on offenders who failed to comply with an initial or follow up assessment for specified Class A drug misuse. We have made no further estimate of the impact on the size of the prison population, other than the impact assessment that accompanied the Bill. The Government will shortly lay before Parliament a memorandum providing a post-legislative assessment of the Drugs Act 2005.
Alan Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether her Department has (a) prepared a regulatory impact assessment and (b) estimated the cost to the public purse of implementing its proposals to introduce elected police commissioners. 
Mrs May [holding answer 6 September 2010]: A full impact assessment will be prepared and published ahead of the introduction of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill later in this session. We are still consulting with the public and with partners about many aspects of the policy, and will be publishing estimates of costs following that consultation.
Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Leader of the House what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on the experience of staff of hon. Members of the expenses scheme. 
Sir George Young: I have regular discussions on a range of issues with representatives of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, including the experience of staff of hon. Members of the expenses scheme.
Grahame M. Morris:
To ask the Leader of the House how many hon. Members claimed for (a) professional advice, (b) cleaning, (c) janitorial or reception services, (d) maintenance services for computer hardware and
software, (e) interpreting and translation services, (f) recruitment services and (g) training for their staff from their staffing allowance in 2009-10. 
Sir George Young: The numbers of Members who have had costs met from their 2009-10 staffing expenditure for each of the categories requested are as follows:
(a) professional advice: 14
(b) cleaning: 22
(c) janitorial or reception services: 7
(d) maintenance services for computer hardware and software: 7
(e) interpreting and translation services: 1
(f) recruitment services: 4
(g) training for their staff: 30.
David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to improve the performance of (a) the Child Support Agency and (b) the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission against its objectives. 
Maria Miller: The Child Support Agency has improved its performance over the last few years against its objectives. This can be seen in the latest quarterly summary of statistics published on 28 July 2010:
The objectives for the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, which has responsibility for the Child Support Agency, are set out in its business plan for 20010-11:
However despite positive progress, significant challenges remain. I have had a number of meetings with the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to establish how current delivery fits with the Coalition Government priorities.
As with all areas of Government expenditure, detailed plans are subject to review.
Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many children were lifted out of relative poverty between 1997 and May 2010. 
Maria Miller: Estimates of the number and proportion of children living in poverty are published in the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. HBAI uses household income adjusted (or 'equivalised') for household size and composition, to provide a proxy for standard of living.
Figures for 1997-98 cover Great Britain only, as Northern Ireland data did not become available until the following year. The latest available data cover 2008-09.
Between 1997-98 and 2008-09, the number of children with incomes below 60% of the contemporary median income reduced by around 0.7 million in Great Britain.
In 1997-98, there were around 3.4 million children in relative poverty in Great Britain, which equates to around 27% of all children. The 2008-09 UK figures show that around 2.8 million children were in relative poverty, equating to around 22%.
|Table: Number of children living in households with less than 60 per cent of contemporary median household income, before housing costs|
1. These statistics are based on the Households Below Average Income series, sourced from the Family Resources Survey.
2. All estimates are based on survey data and are therefore subject to uncertainty.
3. The reference period for Households Below Average Income figures are single financial years.
4. The income measures used to derive the estimates shown employ the same methodology as the Department for Work and Pensions publication 'Households Below Average Income' (HBAI) series, which uses disposable household income, adjusted (or 'equivalised') for household size and composition, as an income measure as a proxy for standard of living.
5. For the Households Below Average Income series, incomes have been equivalised using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) modified equivalisation factors.
6. Numbers of adults and children in low-income households have been rounded to the nearest 100,000.
7. These statistics are based on incomes Before Housing Costs.
Households Below Average Income, DWP
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance his Department provides to people applying for crisis loans on the (a)
basis for the application of the habitual residence test and (b) criteria used to determine the outcome of that test. 
Steve Webb: The information requested is as follows:
(a) General guidance for people applying for crisis loans is available on the Direct Gov website and leaflet DWP1007. Applications are normally made by telephone and people can discuss their circumstances with the Crisis Loan decision-maker.
The Habitual Residence Test does not preclude the payment of a crisis loan if the application is made as a consequence of a disaster. If the application is not to alleviate the consequences of a disaster and the applicant has failed the Habitual Residence Test, in relation to a claim for an income-related benefit, a crisis loan will not be awarded.
(b) The Habitual Residence Test is applied to everyone who claims an income-related benefit such as Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Pension Credit, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit. To satisfy the test a person must first have a right to reside and secondly, be actually habitually resident in the Common Travel Area(1) (CTA). A person who fails either or both parts of the test is treated as a person from abroad and does not have access to these benefits.
In deciding whether a person is actually habitually resident, decision makers, who decide entitlement to benefit, consider a wide variety of factors. These include reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, the length of their stay, future intentions, previous links with the country and, in the case of people returning to the United Kingdom, the reasons for their absence.
(1) The United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and the Republic of Ireland.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on external consultants and advisers by (a) his Department and (b) each (i) non-departmental public body and (ii) Executive agency for which he is responsible in each year since 2005. 
Chris Grayling: Total consultancy spend since 1 April 2005 for DWP (including Executive agencies and CMEC), and its non-departmental bodies (NDPBs) is provided as follows:
|Financial year spend|
Pension Ombudsman/Pension Protection Delivery Fund Ombudsman
|(1) Figures are not available.|
Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) average and (b) highest daily rate paid to consultants by his Department was in each of the last five years. 
Chris Grayling: This information is not available in this format as the Department for Work and Pensions typically competes and contracts for particular consultancy services or outcomes on a fixed cost basis rather than by the number of consultant days worked.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much (a) his Department and its predecessors and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on legal advice in each year since 1997. 
Chris Grayling: The information is as follows.
|DWP Legal category spending by year|
The 2010-11 spend is for the period 1 April to 30 June 2010
DWP's (including Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) costs for external legal advice are shown in the table above. They are captured under a range of existing commercial contracts. Prior to 2003, this information was not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Body||1997 to 2002||2002-03||2003-04||2004-05||2005-06||2006-07||2007-08||2008-09||2009 - 10|
The following bodies were sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions and its predecessors during the period for which information is requested. These bodies have either been closed or replaced by a successor body as shown as follows:
Pensions Compensation Board was replaced by the Pension Protection Fund in April 2005;
Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority ceased on 5 April 2005, its work is now done by The Pensions Regulator;
The Appeals Service moved to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) on 1 April 2006;
Disability Rights Commissioner was subsumed into the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in September 2007;
National Employment Panel ceased on 31 March 2008. Its functions have been incorporated into the UK Commission for Employment and Skills from 1 April 2008;
Working Ventures UK closed down on 30 September 2009.
NDPBs operate individual arrangements and I will let the hon. Member have information in relation to spend on legal advice for the following: The Pension Protection Fund, Disability Employment Advisory Committee, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board, Equality 2025 and Industrial Injuries Advisory Council as soon as possible.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the monetary value was of (a) public opinion research and (b) public relations contracts awarded by his Department in each of the last five years in each (i) nation and (ii) region of the UK. 
Chris Grayling: Financial data relating to all external spend of the Department are held on a consolidated UK basis. They cannot easily be broken down by nation, region of the UK, or by London without incurring disproportionate cost. The data provided below are therefore applicable to total spend across the UK.
(a) Public opinion research in each of the last five years
My Department does not conduct opinion polling.
My Department conducted annual omnibus surveys to monitor public attitudes to the Government's welfare reform programme in 2005-10.
(b) Public relations contracts in each of the last five years
The Department contracts with PR agencies when there is a clear case that the agency's specific expertise and capacity will allow the Department to be more effective in its communications, or to meet a defined communications need that cannot be met by an in-house resource.
Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effects on women of reductions in his Department's expenditure announced in the June 2010 Budget. 
Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensions is considering the equality impacts of all proposed reductions in the Department's welfare spending announced in the Budget on 22 June 2010.
Ian Mearns: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of proposed changes to housing benefit levels on housing markets in areas with a high number of properties in the private rented sector. 
Steve Webb: We will monitor the impact of the changes to housing benefit announced in the Emergency Budget through housing benefit data we routinely collect from local authorities. We will also be discussing with other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations other ways we might monitor the wider impact of these changes.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many units of temporary accommodation in each local authority area in London had housing benefit payments above (a) the local housing authority caps as set out in the Budget Red Book and (b) above the 30th percentile in the most recent quarter for which figures are available. 
Steve Webb: The information is not available.
The local housing allowance (LHA) arrangements only apply to the deregulated private sector, and for temporary accommodation there is no record of the notional bedroom entitlement or the broad rental market area to be able to compare them with the applicable LHA rates.
Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he consulted (a) trade unions and (b) families of people killed or injured at work on the terms of reference of Lord Young's review of health and safety legislation. 
Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State did not consult with any organisations on the terms of reference for Lord Young's health and safety review.
However, during the course of his review, Lord Young consulted with a number of organisations and key stakeholders, including, for example, the Trades Union Congress and Families Against Corporate Killers.
Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many (a) pensioners and (b) working age households received local housing allowance in March 2010 within each of the broad market rental areas; 
(2) how many private tenants were in receipt of local housing allowance for (a) shared room, (b) one bedroom, (c) two bedroom, (d) three bedroom, (e) four bedroom and (f) five bedroom properties in March 2010 within each of the broad market rental areas covering each local authority; 
(3) what estimate he has made of the proportion of private tenancies in each broad market rental areas for which local housing allowance is claimed; 
(4) how many private sector tenants of working age were receiving local housing allowance above the 30th percentile of rents in each broad market rental area in March 2010; 
(5) how many private sector tenants of pension age were receiving local housing allowance above the 30th percentile of rents in each broad market rental area in March 2010; 
(6) how many local housing allowance recipients are paying rents at or below the 30th percentile in each broad market rental area. 
The information is not available. The Department only collects case-specific data at the point the local authority makes a decision on a claim and this
can be up to 12 months in the past. Broad rental market area boundaries are subject to regular review and can change resulting in new areas being created. To provide the requested information by broad rental market area for any specific month would require remapping each household on the area boundaries for that month which could be done only at a disproportionate cost.
Mr Buckland: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households in receipt of local housing allowance in Swindon receive a sum in benefit (a) lower than, (b) higher than and (c) equal to the level of their rent payments. 
Steve Webb: The Department for Work and Pensions published 'Impacts of Housing Benefit proposals: Changes to the Local Housing Allowance to be introduced in 2011-12' on 23 July, which includes analysis of the impact of removing the excess for those who receive housing benefit above their rent. Copies of the document are available in the Library. Table 14 shows the number of households assessed under the local housing arrangements for each local authority who were receiving housing benefit above their rent.
Information on number of households receiving housing benefit awards equal or lower than their rent payments is not available at sub-national level.
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 20 July 2010, Official Report, columns 221-2W, on mortgages: Government assistance, when he expects to have developed an estimate of the effect of the changes proposed to the level of assistance under the Support for Mortgage Interest Scheme in the June 2010 Budget on the number of home repossessions in each of the next three years; and if he will publish the estimates. 
Steve Webb: The Department does not capture information on reasons for ending a benefit claim, including support for mortgage interest, so specific information on the number of claimants who no longer receive support for mortgage interest payments because their property has been repossessed is not available.
The Department is in the process of developing a model to estimate the impact of changes to support for mortgage interest on the number of repossessions. However any estimates will always be limited since detailed case-by-case information, such as arrears at the start of a claim, is not collected by the Department. The Department will consider whether the results can be used publicly once this is work is complete.
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was paid in support for mortgage interest benefit in each (a) region, (b) local authority and (c) Jobcentre Plus district in the last 12 months; and how much was paid to those who were also in receipt of (i) income support, (ii) jobseeker's allowance and (iii) pension credit in each such case. 
Steve Webb: Support for mortgage interest is not a benefit in its own right; it is one component in the calculation of entitlement to income-related benefits. However the Department's administrative records allow it to estimate the expenditures involved on this component.
The information is not available in the format requested; the available information has been placed in the Library. The information relates to Great Britain, and the financial year 2009-10.
John Healey: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in each region were in receipt of support for mortgage interest benefit in each region in the last 12 months; and how many of those were also in receipt of (a) income support, (b) jobseeker's allowance and (c) pension credit in each such case. 
Steve Webb: The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the following tables.
|Claimants of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance and pension credit in receipt of support for mortgage interest: by country and/or region, as at February and May 2009|
|Claimants of income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance and pension credit in receipt of support for mortgage interest: by country and/or region, as at August and November 2009|
1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
2. Figures have been uprated using 5% proportions against 100% Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study (WPLS) totals.
3. For jobseeker's allowance mortgage interest can only be claimed on income-based jobseeker's allowance.
4. Monthly figures are not available therefore the last four quarters data have been provided.
Department for Work and Pensions, Information Directorate, 5% sample
Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants of each benefit type successfully appealed against a benefit sanction in 2009-10. 
Mr Djanogly: I have been asked to reply.
The First-tier Tribunal-Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) is responsible for considering appeals against decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Neither the Tribunals Service nor the Department for Work and Pensions is able to provide the information which the hon. Member has requested. This is because appeals against a benefit sanction are not separately identified as part of the appeals process.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of invoices from suppliers his Department paid within 10 days of receipt in July and August 2010. 
David Mundell: The Scotland Office paid 100% of its July 2010 invoices within 10 days of receipt. The figures for August 2010 are not yet available.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many transport-related fines his Department has settled on behalf of its staff in each year since 2005; and what the cost to the public purse was in each such year. 
David Mundell: The Scotland Office maintains the policy that road traffic violations remain the responsibility of the individual and are not reimbursed from public funds. As such, there has been no expenditure on transport-related fines since 2005.
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of pension contributions incurred by his Department in each of the last three
financial years; and what the planned expenditure is for 2010-11. 
David Mundell: Pension contributions incurred by the Scotland Office for the last three years are as follows:
|Pension contributions (£)|
The planned expenditure for 2010-11 is £430,194.
Tom Greatrex: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to the answer of 27 July 2010, Official Report, column 975W, on departmental travel, what the (a) location and (b) times of arrival and departure were of each of his engagements on 13 July 2010. 
Michael Moore: Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many external training courses were attended by staff of his Department in the last 12 months; and what the cost to the public purse was of each such course. 
David Mundell: The Scotland Office encourages all staff to undertake learning and development activities. The majority of opportunities are provided through the Scottish Government and the Ministry of Justice; but where the training need is still not available within central Government, external training courses may be considered.
The Office does not maintain a central record of external training courses attended or their associated costs.
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much office space per employee his Department and its predecessors occupied in each year since 1997. 
Norman Baker: As reported in the State of the Estate report the Department for Transport reported occupancy, excluding operational properties, of 12.4 square metres per person in 2007-08 and 12.7 square metres per person in 2008-09.
Information for the period prior to 2007-08 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Data for 2009-10 are currently being collated.
Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department and its predecessors spent on vacant properties in each year since 1997. 
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002 and comprises a central Department and seven Executive agencies. Information for the period prior to this date is not available.
The requested information, where recorded, is provided as follows.
|(1 )Relates to six vacant former Strategic Rail Authority properties that transferred to the Department on 16 October 2005. Spend includes rent, rates, service charge, professional fees, dilapidations and exit payments. All properties have been disposed of and there are no vacant properties on the central estate.|
(2 )Data for the period prior to 2010-11 are available only at disproportionate cost.
(3 )Relates to one property which was disposed of in January 2008.
(4 )These figures include rent/lease, service charge, maintenance, rates, utilities, professional fees and security.
(5 )These costs are property fees only and do not include any supervision fees.
No other part of the Department has incurred spend on vacant properties.
Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid in remuneration in total to civil servants in his Department in 2009-10. 
Norman Baker: In total, £126,160,000 was paid as remuneration to civil servants by the Department for Transport in 2009-10. This includes pay, employer pension contributions and national insurance payments, as well as any taxable benefits and non consolidated performance related payments.
Mr Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid by his Department in rent for properties in (a) total and (b) each (i) region and (ii) nation of the UK in each of the last five years. 
Norman Baker: The total amount paid in rent, where recorded, is provided in the following table.
The data requested at (b) (i) and (ii) are available only at disproportionate cost.
|(1) 2009-10 data includes rent review and lease surrender rent.|
(2) Data for 2006-07 and 2005-06 not available due to accounting software issues. The drop in cost between 2008-09 and 2009-10 is because; (a) a number of leasehold properties were disposed of, (b) the rental cost of one of DSA's former HQ buildings was accounted for as a lump sum, for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This equalled £1.2million (excluding VAT) and (c) a change in the International Financial Reporting Standards meant some properties are now shown as 'long-term lease properties' and not 'rental properties'.
(3) These costs exclude centrally funded rental costs associated with office moves. Prior to 2008-09, costs for our Regional Control Centres were managed centrally as part of the project to set up the Traffic Officer Service. It is not feasible to provide a regional breakdown of these costs, Costs for the Regional Control Centres are included from 2008-09 onwards.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the reasons are for the increase in security costs incurred by his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies between 2000-01 and 2008-09. 
Norman Baker: The figures provided in my answer of 27 July 2010, Official Report, columns 1002-1004W, to your previous question, for the costs of protective security for this Department, its agencies and sponsored bodies are from those records available centrally.
The figures provided do not include costs where records are not available centrally or where such records no longer exist. Not all of the Department, its agencies and sponsored bodies were able to provide the requested security cost information for each year of this request. Therefore the total annual spend on security for earlier years has necessarily omitted any spend for those bodies that were unable to provide this information. This suppresses the total spending figures for earlier years when compared to more recent years where more complete information is available.
In addition, central records are not to be taken as representative of total costs as there have been differences across the Department and its agencies in approach to attributing administrative spend against security, as opposed to ICT, Estates, HR etc.
In this respect it should be noted that the security costs for the central Department before 2007-08 did not include costs associated with the provision for National Security Vetting, at which time these functions were transferred from the Department's HR team to the security team.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many claims were received by the Highways Agency under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in the last 12 months; and what proportion of such claims were successful. 
Mike Penning: In the 12 month period from July 2009 to July 2010, the Highways Agency received 4023 claims for compensation under Part 1 Land Compensation Act 1973.
As a result of the process that claims are required to go through in order to establish eligibility and to calculate the amount of compensation payable, not all of the claims submitted over the last 12 months have been settled within that time. Therefore, I cannot estimate the proportion that will prove to be successful. On average, however, compensation is paid in 63% of claims submitted.
Under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 ('the Act'), compensation can be claimed by people who own and also occupy property that has been reduced in value by more than £50 by physical factors caused by the use of a new or altered road. The physical factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the property of any solid or liquid substance.
All Part 1 claims submitted to the Highways Agency are checked to ensure that claimants are both eligible to claim, and hold a qualifying interest in land as defined
by the Act. The claims are then individually assessed by the Agency's independent valuation contractors to ensure that the correct amount of compensation is paid.
The Agency aims to process and settle all claims as quickly as possible. For a small road scheme where there are a small number of claims which are straightforward, this will usually take about six months to complete. For larger road schemes where there are a large number of claims or if the claim is complex, the processing period may take longer, up to 18 months.
Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of the statutory requirement for local authorities to advertise traffic regulation orders; and if he will make a statement. 
Norman Baker: The review of traffic signs policy was launched in September 2008. It includes an Enforcement Action Plan, within which is a task to:
"Develop alternative models to the traffic regulation order process for the purpose of regulatory traffic signs. In particular, to consider whether more restrictions and prohibitions can be delivered directly through the regulations."
The procedures for, and cost-effectiveness of, publicising proposed traffic regulation orders are being considered within that remit.
The findings and recommendations of the review should be available by the middle of next year.
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding his Department plans to provide to each local authority through the road safety grant in 2010-11. 
Mike Penning: The Government have made clear that an urgent priority is to tackle the UK's record deficit in order to restore confidence in our economy and support the recovery. As a contribution to addressing the record deficit, we therefore have reduced the previous plans for local authority funding in 2010-11.
Central Government's financial support grant to local authorities is provided through a variety of mechanisms, such as formula grant (including the revenue support grant), specific grants and specific capital grants.
The Government are clear that local government needs increased flexibility to take decisions locally. It has therefore retained the most flexible funding (formula grant) for 2010-11 at the level approved previously by Parliament (£29 billion).
We have also lifted restrictions on how local government spends its money by removing ring-fences. We expect local authorities to be able to make savings from efficiency measures, eliminating waste and, where necessary, reducing spending in areas that are lower priorities for their communities. The fact that certain grants have been chosen for reduction over others does not mean that the Government expect there to be a direct correlation between grant reductions and local authority budget changes. For example, road safety grant was reduced as this grant was spread evenly across all local authorities, not because this was considered an area of lower priority spending.
The road safety funding allocations for each local authority in 2010-11, as set at April 2010, can be found on the Department for Transport's website at:
Reductions to 2010-11 grants are available on the Department for Communities and Local Government's website at:
Tristram Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic accidents involved a motor vehicle found to have (a) illegal tread depth and (b) poor tyre condition in each of the last 10 years. 
Mike Penning: The Department for Transport does not hold any data on whether motor vehicles involved in road traffic accidents were found to have illegal tread depth or poor tyre condition. Since 2005 the police have collected information on contributory factors to personal injury road accidents. When a police officer attends the scene of a personal injury road accident they can report 'tyres illegal, defective or under inflated' as a contributory factor. The following table shows the number of accidents this factor was reported in for each year since 2005.
|Reported personal injury accidents in which 'tyres illegal, defective or under inflated' was reported as a contributory factor( 1) : GB 2005-09|
|Year of accident||Number of accidents||Percentage of all accidents|
|(1) Includes only cases where a police officer attended the scene and a contributory factor was reported.|
Contributory factors reflect the police officer's opinion at the time of reporting, and where a factor may have contributed to the cause of an accident it may be difficult for a police officer attending the scene after the accident to identify this, so factors may be under-reported. Not all reported road accidents are included in contributory factor analysis, only those where a police officer attended the scene and at least one contributory factor was reported.
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his (a) Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on travel for employees in each year since 1997. 
The Ministry of Defence spent £220 million on travel in 2008-09 and £210 million in 2009-10. These figures include air and rail fares, short-term car hire, the contract and fuel costs of our fleet and rented cars, motor mileage costs reimbursed to staff using
their own vehicles on official duty journeys, the reimbursement of taxi, bus and underground fares, and most sea journeys. Comparable figures before 2008-09 and a breakdown below departmental level are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
A key principle is that travel should be avoided where the business need can be met by alternatives to travel, such as e-mail and video or audio conferencing.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Nimrod MRA4 procurement has cost to date; and what is the estimated cost of crew training and preparation for the aircraft prior to entering service. 
Peter Luff: Procurement costs for the Nimrod MRA4 to June 2010 are approximately £3.4 billion.
The design and implementation of the in-service support solution for the MRA4 aircraft is contracted as a single entity which includes the cost of crew training. The estimated total cost of the support solution up to the currently anticipated achievement of initial operating capability in October 2012 is £0.6 billion. In addition, the estimated cost of pay for RAF personnel undertaking the training until 2012 is £17.2 million.
All projects are being considered as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review, and the outcome of this is expected to be announced in the autumn.
Ian Lavery: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children attend schools which have been rebuilt or refurbished under the Building Schools for the Future programme in (a) Wansbeck constituency, (b) Northumberland and (c) England. 
Mr Gibb: As Northumberland has not joined Building Schools for the Future (BSF), no children in the Wansbeck constituency or the local authority attend schools which have been rebuilt or refurbished under the programme.
Exact figures in respect of England are not held centrally, but we estimate that in mainstream secondary schools around 167,000 students are attending schools that have received BSF investment. This is based on a number on roll of 1,100 for the average secondary school.
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the funding allocated by his Department to school building capital expenditure was administered under the Building Schools for the Future programme; and when he expects to announce details of future capital allocations for schools. 
Mr Gibb: Building Schools for the Future has accounted for around one third of the schools capital budget from 2004.
On 5 July the Secretary of State announced a review of all areas of the Department for Education's capital spending. Its purpose is to ensure that future capital investment represents good value for money.
The review team will produce an interim report in the autumn. Its report will guide future spending decisions over the next Spending Review period (2011-12 to 2014-15). It will also look at how best to meet parental demand; make current design and procurement cost-effective and efficient; and overhaul how capital is allocated and targeted.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will publish the advice he received prior to his decision to end Building Schools for the Future funding for a combined broad spectrum special school in Coventry South constituency; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to end the Building Schools for the Future programme on the (a) Alice Stevens, (b) Sherbourne Fields and (c) Baginton Fields special schools in Coventry; 
(3) what support he intends to provide for the (a) Alice Stevens, (b) Sherbourne Fields and (c) Baginton Fields special schools in Coventry following the ending of the Building Schools for the Future programme; 
(4) what his policy is on the provision of broad spectrum special schools following the ending of the Building Schools for the Future programme; 
(5) what steps he is taking to ensure that special schools in Coventry have adequate facilities to meet the needs of their pupils. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 19 July 2010]: The Secretary of State considered wide-ranging advice from officials on the impact of his decision on the Building Schools for the Future programme, including advice about schools in Coventry. This advice did not cover the specific detail of the impact on special schools in Coventry.
The cancellation of BSF does not represent the end of capital investment in schools. On 5 July the Secretary of State announced a review of the Department's capital programmes. The review will make recommendations to help the decisions of future capital investment in schools, to ensure that investment represents good value for money and strongly supports the Government's ambitions to reduce the deficit, raise standards and tackle disadvantage.
Meg Munn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from organisations representing children's interests on his proposal to publish serious case reviews in full. 
Tim Loughton [holding answer 22 July 2010]: The Government believe that publishing serious case review (SCR) overview reports will restore public confidence and improve transparency in the child protection system, and ensure that the context in which the events occurred is properly understood so relevant lessons are learnt and applied as widely as possible.
Local Safeguarding Children Boards should publish the overview report and the executive summary-anonymised and without identifying details-for all SCRs initiated on or after 10 June unless there are compelling child welfare reasons not to.
According to our records, by 20 July, the Secretary of State had received two written representations about this policy from organisations representing children's interests: one in support of full SCR disclosure from the Victoria Climbié Foundation; and one from Cumbria's Local Safeguarding Children Board raising concerns about anonymity, and frankness of participating practitioners. The President of the Association of Directors of Children's Services (ADCS) also shared her views with DFE Ministers at the recent ADCS conference.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many and what proportion of (a) teachers and (b) support staff employed by schools and other education establishments in Colchester constituency will have their pay frozen as a result of the decision to freeze the wages of public sector workers; 
(2) how many and what proportion of (a) teachers and (b) support staff employed by local education authorities will have their pay frozen as a result of the decision to freeze the wages of public sector workers. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 28 June 2010]: The Department does not hold this information.
The Government have announced a two year pay freeze for public sector workers. For teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales this will take effect from September 2011 for two years. The Secretary of State announced on 22 June 2010 that teachers' pay will be increased by 2.3% from 1 September 2010. The minimum salary of a newly qualified teacher in England and Wales from 1 September 2010 will be £21,588. This exceeds the threshold of £21,000 above which the public sector pay freeze will start as announced in the emergency Budget on 22 June.
There is no central mechanism for deciding the pay of school support staff, with employers having responsibility for determining salaries at local level. That responsibility rests with individual local authorities as the legal employer of support staff in community and voluntary controlled schools, and the governing body in foundation and voluntary aided schools.
Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Education according to what criteria the pupil premium will be allocated. 
Mr Gibb: On Monday 26 July the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) launched a consultation on our proposals for school funding in 2011-12, including options on the best deprivation indicator to use to allocate the pupil premium. The options being considered are:
Free School Meal eligibility-which could be current eligibility or a measure of whether the pupil has ever been eligible for FSM;
Tax Credit Indicator-pupils in families in receipt of out-of- work tax credit;
Commercial packages based on classifications of postcodes, such as Mosaic or Acorn.
We are also seeking views on proposals about how to extend the coverage of the pupil premium to target looked-after children, and children whose parents are in the armed forces.
Full details of the consultation, and a copy of the written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State, can be found online at:
Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of schools rated outstanding by Ofsted at their last inspection changed status in the last 10 years. 
Mr Gibb [holding answer 19 July 2010]: 3.8% of schools rated outstanding at their last inspection have changed their status as defined by their designated school type. This comprises schools that have changed between designations as community schools, community special schools, foundation schools, foundation special schools, voluntary aided schools and voluntary controlled schools.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the effect of state-funded single sex schools on the balance between the sexes in adjacent co-educational state-funded schools; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Gibb: Under current legislation it is for local authorities to assess the likely impact of single sex maintained schools and to ensure there is equal access to single sex provision for the other sex where there is parental demand.
Stewart Hosie: To ask the Attorney-General how many legally qualified staff have been recruited by the Treasury Solicitor's Department since May 2010; and where these posts were advertised. 
The Solicitor-General: No legally qualified staff have been recruited by the Treasury Solicitor's Department since May 2010.
Mr Redwood: To ask the Attorney-General how many temporary staff are employed by (a) the Law Officers' Departments and (b) their agency. 
The Solicitor-General: The information requested is contained in the following table:
|Department||Temporary staff( 1)|
|(1) Recorded data as at 30 June 2010, with the exception of CPS data which is taken from latest published figures from 31 March 2010.|
Priti Patel: To ask the Attorney-General how many paid manpower hours civil servants in the Law Officers' Departments spent on trade union-related duties and activities in each year since 1997. 
The Solicitor-General: The Treasury Solicitor's Department gives a facility time allowance to each of the two recognised trade unions (Public and Commercial Services Union and FDA) for its committee members; the monitoring of this allowance is delegated to local business managers and no central record is held of the actual amounts taken during any financial year. The same arrangement also covers Attorney General's Office staff.
The facility time allowed is as follows:
PCS-an allocation of 1.3 full-time equivalent staff years for Group Office Holders, In addition, one hours facility time was allowed for each member to attend the Annual General Meeting.
FDA-an allocation of approximately 0.15 full-time equivalent staff years for Group Office Holders. In addition, one hour's facility time was allowed for each member to attend the Annual General Meeting.
Information regarding the amount of time spent by Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff on trade union related duties and activities is not available for the period before 2008. The total time spent by paid CPS civil servants on trade union related duties and activities for both unions in the CPS during the periods 2008-09 and 2009-10 was 28, 515 hours and 35, 852 hours respectively.
The Serious Fraud Office does not hold details on the number of days spent by staff engaged on trade union activities. It would be possible to provide such data only at a disproportionate cost.
The size of Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate does not justify an agreement for routine facility time. HMCPSI has a Whitley council which meets quarterly and is attended by FDA and PCS representatives, and where it is necessary for union representatives to devote time to specific activities on personal cases, this is done by agreement with their line manager. No formal record is maintained.
No days were spent by civil servants of the National Fraud Authority on trade union-related activities while being paid salaries in 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Priti Patel: To ask the Attorney-General how many civil servants in the Law Officers' Departments spent the equivalent of (a) five days or fewer, (b) five to 10 days, (c) 10 to 15 days, (d) 15 to 20 days, (e) 20 to 25 days and (f) 25 days or more on trade union-related activities or duties while being paid salaries from the public purse in each year since 1997. 
The Solicitor-General: The Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Attorney-General's Office give a facility time allowance to each of the two recognised Trade Unions (PCS and FDA) for its committee members; the monitoring of this allowance is delegated to local business managers and no central record is held of the actual amounts taken during any financial year.
The facility time allowed is as follows:
Public and Commercial Services Union-an allocation of 1.3 full-time equivalent staff years for Group Office Holders. In addition, one hour's facility time was allowed for each member to attend the Annual General Meeting.
FDA - an allocation of approximately 0.15 full-time equivalent staff years for Group Office Holders. In addition, one hours facility time was allowed for each member to attend the Annual General Meeting.
The Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate do not maintain central records of the exact amount of time spent by staff on trade union activity, and such information could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.
No days were spent by civil servants of the National Fraud Authority on trade union-related activities while being paid salaries in 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Information regarding the amount of time spent by Crown Prosecution Service civil servants on trade union related duties and activities is not available for the period before 2008. The requested breakdown of paid CPS civil servants carrying out trade union activities or duties during 2008-09 and 2009-10 is as follows:
Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent estimate he has made of the number of people employed in the creative industries. 
Mr Vaizey: The last DCMS Creative Industries Economics Estimates bulletin, published in February 2010, reported that in the summer quarter of 2008, creative employment totalled just under 2 million jobs. This comprised over 1.1 million jobs in the creative industries and over 800,000 further creative jobs within businesses outside these industries. A further breakdown is published at:
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what the expenditure on vehicles of (a) his Department and (b) each (i) non-departmental public body and (ii) executive agency for which his Department is responsible in each region of England was in each of the last three financial years; and what the planned expenditure is in each case for 2010-11. 
John Penrose: The Department's and The Royal Parks (TRP) executive agency's expenditure on vehicles in the last three financial years is in the table. In May 2010 the Secretary of State cancelled the Department's car accounts and subject to some fees will save around £250,000 a year. The Royal Parks plans vehicle expenditure of £175,800 for 2010-11 based on existing budget.
|Financial year||DCMS vehicle expenditure||TRP vehicle expenditure|
The Department does not collate information on vehicle expenditure by its arm's length bodies. Accordingly, I have asked their chief executives to write to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Copies of their replies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport for what reasons the letter outlining his Department's decision to uphold English Heritage's listing of Coventry Market was sent to the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) rather than to the hon. Member for Coventry South. 
John Penrose: I apologise for the unfortunate administrative error, procedures have been tightened to prevent further occurrence.
Fiona O'Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will meet volunteers from East Coast FM to discuss community radio license availability. 
Mr Vaizey: The licensing of community radio stations is a matter for Ofcom, who operate independently of Government.
However, I would welcome the opportunity to hear from volunteers from East Coast FM on this issue.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what proportion of funding for the Olympic Village was provided by (a) private investors and (b) the public sector. 
Hugh Robertson: It was originally intended that the Olympic Village would be delivered by a private developer. However, as a consequence of the economic downturn, the previous Government decided that the private developer option did not offer the best value for money for the taxpayer and £650 million of funding for the Olympic Village was therefore provided from the public sector funding package for the 2012 Games. Additional funding of £268 million was provided by Triathlon Homes, a consortium of First Base, and East Thames and Southern registered social landlords, as part of the agreement to purchase 1,379 affordable homes, with the balance of funding due to be raised by sales of homes for occupancy after the Games. Further information on this arrangement was published in the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Economic Report, July 2009.
Nicky Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has had on promoting the Big Society Agenda in relation to preparations for the London 2012 Olympics. 
Hugh Robertson: My Department is in regular contact with other Departments, including the Office for Civil Society, about our plans to develop and deliver a lasting legacy from the London 2012 Games and discussions include the extent to which those plans can help to meet our aspirations for the Big Society. An example of an area where we are exploring how the Games might help to deliver Big Society aspirations is through volunteering. The Games are reliant on volunteers: from Games-time venue-based volunteers to city volunteers in London, Weymouth and other venue locations plus at ports of entry and along the Torch Relay route. We also see great potential for the Games to inspire people across the country to volunteer and engage in their local communities.
I plan to publish a document in the autumn setting out our vision for the legacy of the Games and confirming the legacy programme.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether the Government have underwritten loans taken out by the Olympic Delivery Authority. 
Hugh Robertson: No, nor has the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) taken out any loans.
The Government have however given a guarantee in support of the Olympic Delivery Authority's agreement with Triathlon Homes LLP who have undertaken to purchase 1,379 affordable homes on the Olympic Village Development, and took out loans as part of that agreement. The detailed arrangements of this were announced to Parliament in a ministerial written statement on 22 June 2009.
The details of the ODA's financial position, including commitments, contingent liabilities, subsidiary companies and investments are set out in its annual report and accounts. The annual report and accounts for 2009-10 were laid before Parliament on 22 July and copies are available in the House Library or they can be accessed on the London2012 website at:
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what proportion of property in the Olympic Village will be converted into social housing after the London 2010 Olympic Games. 
Hugh Robertson: After the 2012 Games the Olympic Village will be converted into a mix of private and social housing available for take-up by local people and others. In 2009 Triathlon Homes, a consortium of First Base, and Southern and East Thames registered social landlords, entered into an agreement with the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to purchase 1,379 affordable homes in the Olympic Village, representing 49% of the homes available, with an option that 264 of those could be sold on the open market after one year which, if invoked, would reduce the proportion of affordable homes to 39.5%.
Nicky Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what steps he plans to take to encourage volunteering by people from local London boroughs in the London 2012 Olympics. 
Hugh Robertson: The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) is responsible for recruiting the up to 70,000 'games maker' volunteers required to stage the London 2012 games. LOCOG will launch the application process to the general public later this month, backed up with marketing across London boroughs as well as nation-wide. The games are for the whole of the UK and so all local boroughs, whether in London or not, should be encouraging their residents to consider whether to apply to this scheme. In addition, the Mayor of London is seeking expressions of interest for his 'London ambassador' scheme, seeking volunteers to welcome the world to London at train stations, tourist attractions and live sites.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will make an assessment of the effect on levels of inbound tourism of the cost of a visa to visit the UK compared to the cost of a visa to visit a country within the Schengen zone. 
John Penrose: I have not made a detailed economic impact assessment of the comparative cost and convenience of obtaining UK and Schengen visitor visas, but I am aware of the tourism industry's grave concerns about the possible impact on inbound tourism. Accordingly, improving the pre-entry visa experience is something I am looking at as part of the Government's new tourism strategy, which will be published later in the year. I am working closely with the Home Office to look at simplifying and improving the process of arranging a visa, including whether there could be greater alignment of the UK and Schengen visitor visa processes.
Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether his Department plans to allocate additional funding to VisitBritain for the purposes of marketing related to the (a) London 2012 Olympics and (b) Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games. 
John Penrose: Using the opportunities presented by major events, such as the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and the 2015 Rugby Union World Cup, to create a lasting tourism legacy for all our nations remains a major priority. The funding of VisitBritain over the period 2011-15 is part of ongoing Spending Round considerations. Decisions on the outcome of the Spending Round will be announced in due course.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether redefinition of constituencies consequent upon his proposals to equalise their size will take account of the historic county boundaries. 
Mr Harper: The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, introduced on 22 July, requires that each constituency be wholly in one of the four parts of the United Kingdom. In addition, the rules allow the Boundary Commissions to take account, among other things, of local government boundaries (defined as the boundaries of counties and London boroughs) and local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies. These considerations are subject to the central principle of the rules, which is that constituencies should be of more equal size.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on the level of payments to local authority chief executives for their role in administering elections. 
Mr Harper: To date, the Cabinet Office has received three parliamentary questions and four letters from MPs on behalf of their constituents.
The Cabinet Office has also received correspondence from members of the public who have raised this matter along with other electoral issues.
Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to access unclaimed funds in bank accounts of wound-up companies; and what discussions he has had with banks in respect of any outstanding charges to be levied on such accounts before transfer to the Exchequer. 
The Solicitor-General: I have been asked to reply.
When a company registered under the Companies Acts is dissolved, any property and rights in England and Wales held by the company at the date of its dissolution (including any money in bank accounts) pass to the Crown as "bona vacantia". The Treasury Solicitor is the Crown's nominee for dealing with bona vacantia in England (except in the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster), Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, bona vacantia falls to be dealt with by the Queen and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. Income from bona vacantia is paid into the Consolidated Fund. Banks and other institutions holding such funds are entitled to make lawful deductions in respect of their charges before remitting the balance as bona vacantia.
Where a company is placed in liquidation prior to being dissolved, the liquidator will apply any assets of the company (including any money in bank accounts) to pay its debts. In these circumstances by the time the company is dissolved there will ordinarily be no assets to pass to the Crown as bona vacantia.
In the financial year 2009-10 the Bona Vacantia Division of the Treasury Solicitor's Department received £46,873,362.65 from banks, building societies and other financial institutions and from solicitors' client accounts in respect of dissolved companies.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|