10 May 2011 : Column 1082W
(4) what plans he has for future levels of funding for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons; [54471]
(5) how many staff of his Department work for the Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts. [54472] [Official Report, 20 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 10MC.]
Mr Robathan: The Science Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) was approved as a non-departmental public body in June 2009 and will be established soon. It is expected to be established later this year and it will continue the work previously undertaken by the Defence Science Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of Less Lethal Weapons (DOMILL).
SACMILL’s purpose will be to provide: advice on the biophysical, biomechanical, pathological and clinical aspects of generic classes of Less Lethal Weapons; independent statements on the medical implications of use of specific Less Lethal Weapons; advice on the risk of injury from specific Less Lethal Weapons systems striking specific areas of the body in a format that will assist those responsible for developing policy; and, separately, guidance to users, as well as operational users themselves in making tactical decisions.
As an advisory non-departmental public body it will advise Ministers, but not employ staff or incur expenditure on its own account. The Surgeon General will be a member of the Executive Committee and will provide the secretariat functions for the committee from existing full-time HQ Surgeon General Staff. In addition, the committee may draw on the pool of expertise found within the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments for specific tasks.
The total cost to the Department for DOMILL legacy work undertaken during the financial year 2010-11 was £39,355.56, principally for travel and subsistence costs. Work is currently under way to finalise the tasking arrangements for the financial year 2011-12; a similar level of expenditure as the previous year is expected.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Review Board for Government Contracts was established; [54473]
(2) what the purpose and function is of the Review Board for Government Contracts; [54474]
(3) what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Review Board for Government Contracts; [54675]
(4) how many staff of his Department are employed by the Review Board for Government Contracts; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts; [54677]
(5) what his Department's budget for the Review Board for Government Contracts was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Board under each cost category in that period. [54713]
Mr Robathan: The Review Board for Government Contracts was established in 1968.
10 May 2011 : Column 1083W
The primary purpose of the Review Board is regularly to review and maintain the Government Profit Formula used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) when pricing single source work. A second function of the Review Board is to review the price of individual contracts which are referred to it under contract conditions, by one or both parties to the contract.
The arrangements for single source pricing—which include the role of the Review Board—are currently the subject of an independent review by Lord Currie of Marylebone 26 January 2011, Official Report, House of Lords, column 11WS. Until such time as any changes in the current arrangements are accepted and implemented the Government have stated that they expect the Review Board to continue in its current role.
Under the terms of the 1968 Agreement establishing the Review Board, its Secretariat is provided
“by the engagement of a firm of professional accountants”.
The requirement for secretariat services to the board is periodically advertised under competitive tender processes and is currently provided by Deloitte LLP.
No members of MOD staff are permanently or temporarily employed by the Review Board for Government Contracts.
In 2010-11 the Review Board incurred the following costs (figures include estimated accrued costs of £93,000 for March 2011):
The additional costs of the board's consideration of the MOD contract referral were covered from within the Director General Defence Commercial overall budget provision.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff of his Department are assigned to the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts; [54676]
(2) what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee; [54679]
(3) on what date the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee was established; [54680]
(4) what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee; [54678]
(5) what his Department's budget for the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Committee under each cost category in that period. [54714]
Mr Robathan:
The Defence Nuclear Safety Committee (DNSC) is an advisory non-departmental public body
10 May 2011 : Column 1084W
and, as such, it does not employ staff on its own account. The Ministry of Defence provides the support functions for the body.
The DNSC does not incur expenditure on its own account. Expenditure on fees and reimbursement of travel and subsistence for the financial year 2010-11 is estimated to be some £65,000. Future expenditure will be incurred against any agreed programme of specific advice.
The DNSC's purpose and functions are to advise the Secretary of State for Defence on all safety matters pertaining to the naval nuclear propulsion plant and nuclear weapon systems, including related issues of design, development, manufacture, storage, in-service support, handling, transport, operational training, support facilities and capabilities, the safety of workers and the public.
The DNSC was established in 1999.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff of his Department are employed by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts; [54681]
(2) what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Defence Scientific Advisory Council; [54682]
(3) what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council; [54683]
(4) on what date the Defence Scientific Advisory Council was established; [54684]
(5) what his Department's budget for the Defence Scientific Advisory Council was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Council under each cost category in that period. [54712]
Mr Robathan: The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) is an advisory non-departmental public body and as such it does not employ staff on its own account. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) provides the secretariat functions for the body.
DSAC does not incur expenditure on its own account. However, we estimate that expenditure on fees, and travel and subsistence reimbursement came to about £170,000 in the financial year 2010-11. However, future MOD expenditure may be incurred depending on any specific scientific requirement identified.
DSAC provides the MOD's main source of independent scientific advice on non-nuclear science, engineering technology and analysis issues.
DSAC was established on 1 April 1969, but its antecedents go back to 1940 in the form of the Advisory Council on Scientific Research and Technical Development which reported to the Minister of Supply.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation was established; [54686]
(2) how many staff of his Department are assigned to the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts; [54687]
10 May 2011 : Column 1085W
(3) what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation; [54688]
(4) what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation; [54689]
(5) what his Department's budget for the Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Committee under each cost category in that period. [54711]
Mr Robathan: The Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation was established in 1921 under the War Pensions Act. Its purpose is to give service, ex-service and voluntary organisations a forum in which they can consult with the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on pension and compensation issues. The MOD provides the secretariat functions for the body at no additional cost to the MOD.
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff of his Department are engaged by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and how many such staff are on (a) temporary and (b) permanent contracts; [54704]
(2) what plans his Department has for future expenditure on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; [54705]
(3) what the (a) purpose and (b) functions are of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; [54706]
(4) on what date the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was established; [54707]
(5) what his Department's budget for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and how much was spent on the Body under each cost category in that period. [54709]
Mr Robathan: The Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB) was established in 1971. Its purpose is to provide independent advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the Naval, Military and Air Forces of the Crown. The Office of Manpower Economics (within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) provides the secretariat function. The 2011-12 Ministry of Defence budget for AFPRB activity is £88,920; the main items of expenditure are AFPRB member salaries (£66,750) and the production of the AFPRB Report (£8,572). The future funding for the body for the spending review period is expected to be in line with that for the current financial year.
Departmental Vacancies
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the staff vacancy rate in his Department was in 2010-11; and what vacancy rate has been assumed in his Department's budget for 2011-12. [51392]
Mr Robathan:
In financial year 2010-11, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) advertised 4,940 vacancies internally to its own staff and 1,040 vacancies externally to other Departments and the general public (both totals rounded
10 May 2011 : Column 1086W
to the nearest 10). There has been a freeze on external recruitment to the MOD since May 2010, other than for business critical posts, such as those in direct support of operations, apprenticeships, fast stream and specialist graduates and posts paid for in full by other parties (for example United States visiting forces and NATO support facilities). There is no central planning assumption on staff vacancy rate for civil service staff in the MOD.
Electronic Warfare
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding his Department has allocated to the prevention of cyber attacks by the Stuxnet computer virus. [52736]
Nick Harvey: The Department has procedural and physical measures in place to protect against and mitigate the impact of cyber attack. We do not comment on the specific detail of cyber security incidents or threat assessments.
The Department reviews the adequacy of its overall protection on an annual basis to inform its planning round process.
Ex-servicemen: Radiation
Mr Brine: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to investigate the health effects of nuclear test veterans' exposure to ionising radiation on their offspring. [54787]
Mr Robathan: The Ministry of Defence has placed a £75,000 contract to take forward a health needs audit of nuclear test veterans. The audit is in line with a wider NHS commitment to improve access and support in relation to the health needs of all veterans in the UK and will gather and record the direct experience and views of nuclear test veterans about their health and social care needs. Veterans have had the ability to input any concerns they have had including about their children during the study, which is due to be completed in the summer.
Mr Brine: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has assessed the merits of extending the entitlement criteria applying to the war pension scheme to include radiation-linked diseases other than leukaemia. [54788]
Mr Robathan: Published peer-reviewed medical and scientific literature is routinely screened to ensure medically sound decisions under the war pensions scheme are made, and where appropriate entitlement policy and practice is amended. To date this scrutiny does not suggest any extension of entitlement criteria for nuclear test veterans is appropriate.
Foreign Relations
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Tunisia, (ii) Libya, (iii) Kuwait and (iv) Saudi Arabia since January 2010; [49903]
10 May 2011 : Column 1087W
(2) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Syria, (ii) Yemen, (iii) Qatar and (iv) Egypt since January 2010; [49913]
(3) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Lebanon, (ii) Israel, (iii) Nigeria and (iv) Uzbekistan since January 2010; [49914]
(4) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Guinea, (ii) Turkey, (iii) United Arab Emirates and (iv) Chad since January 2010; [49916]
(5) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Burundi, (ii) Kenya, (iii) Sudan and (iv) Zimbabwe since January 2010; [49917]
(6) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from Bahrain since January 2008; [49918]
10 May 2011 : Column 1088W
(7) on what occasions (a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) military personnel in his Department have met their counterparts from (i) Iraq, (ii) Ivory Coast, (iii) Liberia and (iv) Burkina Faso since January 2010. [49919]
Nick Harvey: Organised bilateral meetings have taken place between Ministry of Defence (MOD) Ministers and personnel with the countries specified in the following table, to 31 March 2011. Not all the information requested is available centrally.
‘Senior visits’ refer to three and four-star officials and officers other than the Chief of the Defence Staff; “working visits” are at lower levels. The occasion of a single visit may involve several engagements with a range of counterparts.
This list excludes contacts by or with Defence Attachés and advisers; operational deployments; permanently deployed training and loan service personnel; training conducted in the UK or overseas; Directorate General Saudi Armed Forces Projects; contacts involving MOD personnel attached to international institutions, such as the UN; and contacts at multilateral events such as conferences, exhibitions and seminars.
10 May 2011 : Column 1089W
HMS Albion
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to place HMS Albion into extended readiness. [54993]
Nick Harvey: On current plans HMS Albion will begin her period of extended readiness in late 2011, at which point HMS Bulwark will become the high readiness landing platform dock.
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution (a) HMS Albion and (b) HMS Ocean has made to the Royal Navy's Response Force Task Group; and if he will make a statement. [54994]
Nick Harvey: The Royal Navy's Response Force Task Group is a new initiative announced in last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) and Cougar 11 is its first deployment. HMS Albion and HMS Ocean as with all other units on this deployment have been developing, through force generation and collective training, contingent capability in their respective roles as the landing platform dock and landing platform helicopter.
HMS Liverpool
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decommissioning date he has set for HMS Liverpool. [54991]
Nick Harvey: On current plans, HMS Liverpool will be withdrawn from service in 2012.
Navy: Olympic Games 2012
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for Royal Navy vessels to be used to provide office and control centre accommodation for the London 2012 Olympics. [53969]
Nick Harvey: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is working with the Home Office, police and other Government Departments to identify what support the military may provide to the 2012 Olympics. The MOD is currently considering requests and planning is ongoing; no decisions have yet been made regarding the use of Royal Navy vessels.
Navy: Training
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the results of the Naval Review of Training; and if he will make a statement. [54761]
Nick Harvey [holding answer 9 May 2011]: As part of the continued drive to deliver more effective and efficient training, the Navy Board has endorsed a new training regime: Initial Naval Training (INT). The INT is a common package of core naval training but with separate officer and rating classes to enhance levels of individual capability and to meet the needs of the modern, adaptable Navy.
The first 10-week INT course for ratings will commence on 8 May 2011, with the officers’ INT course beginning in January 2012.
10 May 2011 : Column 1090W
Nuclear Submarines
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when research and development work for the PWR2b type reactor was initiated; [54669]
(2) what studies have been carried out into the use of the PWR2b type reactor for later submarines in the Astute class; and when such studies were initiated; [54670]
(3) on what date the safety of UK nuclear submarines was first benchmarked against (a) relevant civil nuclear practice and (b) US Navy practice; [54671]
(4) what assessment the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator has made of the capability of a PWR2b plant for the Trident replacement submarines to deliver emergency core cooling through direct head injection in dealing with a loss of coolant accident; [54708]
(5) what assessment the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator has made of the capacity of a PWR2b plant to demonstrate relevant good practice in responding to a loss of coolant accident; [54672]
(6) whether the ability of the PWR2b and PWR3 plants to deal with a loss of coolant accident has yet been reviewed sufficiently to satisfy a decision for the initial gate business case; [54673]
(7) whether a formal presentation of (a) the safety analysis and arguments for a PWR2b plant and (b) the associated cost and schedule risk have yet been made to the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator; [54674]
(8) if he will publish the analysis of the (a) PWR2b and (b) PWR3 design concepts for the Trident replacement submarines as part of the initial gate business case; [54716]
(9) what assessment he has made in the reduction of risk with regard to (a) control of submarine depth and (b) a loss of coolant accident from a (i) PWR2b and (ii) PWR3 propulsion system for the Trident replacement submarine. [54717]
Nick Harvey [holding answer 9 May 2011]: The Ministry of Defence has maintained a continuous research and technology development programme that delivers improvements to safety, as well as other aspects of reactor plant performance, for nuclear submarines that are currently being operated or built for the Royal Navy, as well as enabling the design of future nuclear reactor plants.
Regular detailed scrutiny of submarine reactor plant safety is conducted by expert personnel from within the Ministry of Defence, including the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator and the Health and Safety Executive's Office of Nuclear Regulation and by independent nuclear safety assessors to ensure safety is benchmarked against national and internationally accepted standards.
For reasons of security, I do not intend to go into further detail about specific aspects of nuclear submarine reactor plant design, or what specific assessments have, or will be undertaken for future reactor plant designs. However, all such considerations are subject to a rigorous assessment against principles that are consistent with those applied across all UK nuclear reactor programmes, of which safety is a paramount consideration. These
10 May 2011 : Column 1091W
principles are embodied within the Health and Safety Executive's Safety Assessment Principles, which were adopted by the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator during 2007-08.
Warships
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the composition of the Cougar deployment is; and what its mission is. [54758]
Nick Harvey [holding answer 9 May 2011]: Cougar is the 2011 deployment of the Response Force Task Group (RFTG) and is composed of HMS Albion, HMS Ocean, HMS Liverpool, HMS Sutherland, RFA Wave Knight, RFA Cardigan Bay, RFA Fort Rosalie and RFA Mounts Bay, together with embarked Royal Marine commandos and air assets comprising five Lynx, seven Sea King and three Apache.
This long planned exercise will develop the RFTG through force generation and collective training, to demonstrate contingent capability and to develop relationships with regional partners in support of Defence objectives.
Treasury
Double-dip Recession
15. Charlie Elphicke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent assessment is of the likelihood of a double-dip recession. [54736]
Danny Alexander: The UK returned to positive growth in the first quarter of this year. The Government have always said the recovery will be choppy. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility and all other credible forecasters, including the NIESR who released forecasts just last week, are very clear that the UK recovery will continue.
Economic Growth
16. Margaret Curran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of changes in the outlook for economic growth since the assessment made as part of the comprehensive spending review. [54737]
Mr Gauke: The Government's economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries. The economic forecasts published at Budget by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) take full account of the policy measures announced in both the spending review and the Budget published in March of this year. The OBR forecasts the economy to grow throughout 2011 and in every year of the forecast.
19. Ian Murray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of trends in the level of economic growth in the last two quarters. [54741]
Mr Gauke:
Manufacturing is growing strongly, the economy has created thousands of jobs since the turn of the year and borrowing is down. The independent
10 May 2011 : Column 1092W
Office for Budget Responsibility and all other credible forecasters, including NIESR whose forecast was released just last week, are very clear that the UK recovery will continue.
Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of changes in the outlook for economic growth since May 2010. [54743]
Mr Gauke: The Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries. The economic forecasts published at Budget by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) take full account of the policy measures announced in both the spending review and the Budget published in March of this year. The OBR forecasts the economy to grow throughout 2011 and in every year of the forecast.
Mr Love: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of trends in the level of economic growth in the last two quarters. [54731]
Justine Greening: The economy has returned to growth. Manufacturing is growing strongly, the economy has created thousands of jobs and borrowing is down. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility and other credible forecasters, including NIESR whose forecast was released just last week, are very clear that the UK recovery will continue.
EU Budget 2012
17. Bob Stewart: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the European Commission's proposals for the EU budget for 2012. [54738]
Justine Greening: The Government have been clear that a 4.9% increase in EU spending in 2012, proposed by the Commission, is unacceptable. The letter signed by the UK, France, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands in December last year clearly states that growth in EU spending in 2012 must be curbed. The Government will work with other member states to deliver the best possible outcome for UK taxpayers in future negotiations.
Working Tax Credit
18. Nick Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of families who earn less than £30,000 a year who will have their income reduced as a result of changes to the working tax credit. [54739]
Justine Greening: Given the interaction of tax credit measures with other benefits, it is the overall impact of measures that is important for a household.
At Budget 2011 the Government published detailed distributional analysis of the impacts of its decisions. Looking at the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced at the last Budget and previous fiscal events, the top decile sees the largest losses.
10 May 2011 : Column 1093W
This is the case across the income distribution, in both cash terms (Chart A.2) and as a proportion of net income (Chart A.3). It is also the case across the expenditure distribution, in cash terms (Chart A.4) and as a proportion of expenditure (Chart A.5).
Child Poverty
22. Mr Bain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the OECD on the effects of his Department's fiscal policies on levels of child poverty. [54744]
Justine Greening: The Minister for Employment attended the OECD Social Policy ministerial meeting on 2 May where child poverty was discussed.
The 2011 Budget confirmed that the Government's modelled tax and welfare reforms could reduce relative child poverty by up to 50,000 over the next two years.
However, poverty is about more than just income. The reforms announced by this Government are about tackling the causes of poverty and will increase fairness and improve work incentives.
Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
23. Claire Perry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the size of the public sector borrowing requirement. [54745]
Justine Greening: The Public Sector Finances first release published by the Office for National Statistics estimates that the first provisional outturn for public sector net borrowing in 2010-11 is £141.1 billion or 9.6% of GDP, this is £15 billion lower than 2009-10.
In March 2011 the independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecast public sector net borrowing to 2015-16. This forecast is available at:
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2011
Bank Lending
Tom Brake: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of trends in levels of bank lending to small businesses. [54742]
Mr Hoban: Overall repayment of debt by small businesses is running ahead of lending to the same sector. As a consequence, net lending fell in the first quarter of this year. However, the availability of credit to business in the same period increased.
Child Benefit
Stephen Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants there are of child benefit in (a) the UK and (b) England. [54495]
Mr Gauke: At August 2010 there were 7,841,675 households in the UK that receive child benefit, of which 6,562,705 were in England.
The latest information on the number of families receiving child benefit, by each parliamentary constituency, local authority and region is available in the HMRC snapshot publication “Child Benefit Statistics Geographical Analysis. August 2010”. This can be found at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/child_benefit/chb-geog-aug10.pdf
10 May 2011 : Column 1094W
Stephen Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of child benefit in England are in receipt of that benefit in respect of (a) two, (b) three and (c) more than three children. [54496]
Mr Gauke: The following table shows the information requested:
| Households in receipt of child benefit in England | |
| Note: The figures have been independently rounded to the nearest five. This can lead to components not summing to totals as shown. | |
The latest information on the number of families receiving child benefit, by each parliamentary constituency, local authority and region is available in the HMRC snapshot publication “Child Benefit Statistics Geographical Analysis. August 2010”. This can be found at:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/child_benefit/chb-geog-aug10.pdf
Departmental Pensions
Steve Baker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of his Department's budget he expects to be spent on staff pensions in each of the next five years. [54563]
Justine Greening: The Department does not publish forecasts of pay-related spending for future years.
Members: Correspondence
Sir Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to reply to the letter of 14 March 2011 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms J. Lambert. [54821]
Justine Greening: I wrote to all Members on 4 April 2011 to set out the Government's position on fuel duty and motoring following the Budget in order to respond to correspondence that hon. Members have raised on that topic.
Renewable Energy: Finance
Dr Whitehead: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to include the energy companies’ obligation in the cap on the impact of levy-funded support on energy bills described in paragraph 2.159 of “The Plan for Growth”. [54233]
Justine Greening: The new control framework for DECC levy-funded spending covers DECC's policies that entail levy-funded spending and that are classified by the Office for National Statistics as tax and spend for National Accounts purposes.
If other DECC policies are classified by the Office for National Statistics as tax and spend and yet are deficit neutral then they will fall within the control framework. The energy company obligation will be included if it is classified as such.
10 May 2011 : Column 1095W
Taxation: Environment Protection
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what definition of a green tax his Department uses. [54480]
Justine Greening: The Government are currently reviewing what taxes are classified as environmental. Once this work concludes a statement will be placed in the House Library.
Whisky: Scotland
Lindsay Roy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the monetary value to the UK economy of overseas sales in the whisky industry in Scotland. [53039]
Mr Prisk: I have been asked to reply.
According to Overseas Trade Statistics data published by HM Revenue and Customs, UK exports of whisky (SITC 11241) totalled £3,520 million in 2010. Of this, about £72 million was not Scotch.
Energy and Climate Change
Biofuels
Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he made of the implications for human rights of the Clean Development Mechanism projects (a) augan biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas utilisation and (b) lean biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas/biomass utilisation prior to authorising the purchase of credits from each project. [53967]
Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware of the allegations in respect of these projects and has written to the CDM Executive Board to request a robust investigation. Of the two projects mentioned in recent representations by Biofuelwatch, the UK Government have issued only a Letter of Authorisation (LoA) in respect of the participation of EDF Trading Ltd in the augan biogas recovery project (CDM reference number 3197). The lean biogas recovery project was not authorised by the UK.
When assessing the augan project the standard procedures for dealing with applications seeking UK authorisation of companies’ participation in CDM projects were followed. These require the applicant to submit documentation including a letter of approval from the Honduran Government stating that the project contributes to sustainable development alongside a declaration that all documentation is correct. On the basis of these assurances, a letter of authorisation was issued to EDF Trading Ltd based on these assurances on 3 June 2009, prior to the events recounted in the allegations. We understand that EDF energy has since withdrawn from participation in the project.
The final assessment of whether any CDM project is compliant with CDM rules lies with the CDM Executive Board, which is currently reviewing the status of the augan project.
10 May 2011 : Column 1096W
Charlotte Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what representations he has received on the (a) augan biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas utilisation and (b) lean biogas recovery from palm oil mill effluent ponds and biogas/biomass utilisation project under the Clean Development Mechanism; and if he will make a statement. [53968]
Gregory Barker: The allegations of human rights abuses in connection with these two projects were first brought to the attention of the Secretary of State on 4 February 2011, when a letter of protest was received from a coalition of NGOs led by Biofuelwatch. This was followed in early April by a mass e-mail campaign.
The allegations are plainly deplorable. Consequently the Secretary of State wrote to number of relevant organisations and responsible bodies, expressing his concern and requesting further information. These organisations included the Honduran authorities, the CDM Executive Board and the UK authorised project participant, EDF Trading Ltd. The Secretary of State also asked the Executive Board to assess whether the project meets CDM rules and to deal with the human rights allegations in so far as they are able.
EDF Trading Ltd has recently announced that it is terminating its involvement in the two projects. Of the two projects EDF had received only a UK Letter of Authorisation (LoA) for one: the augan biogas recovery project. Since the UK LoA was valid for use only by EDF, the termination of its involvement in the project effectively renders the letter defunct.
Energy Supply
Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how many instances his Department and its predecessors have recorded of transfers between energy suppliers made in error and without the customer's consent in each of the last five years. [54626]
Charles Hendry: DECC does not hold the information requested. To meet its principal duty to protect the interests of consumers, Ofgem collects data on a range of issues, including erroneous transfers. Whilst Ofgem does not publish these data it has statutory powers to take action to address market issues where it feels such action is required.
Erroneous transfers of energy supplies most commonly occur because of administrative or data error on the part of the supplier. Since 2009, the big six suppliers have operated the “Peace of Mind Guarantee”, which sets out the process customers who have been affected by an erroneous transfer can expect to rectify the error. The guarantee was designed to ensure mistakes are corrected quickly and with as little inconvenience to the consumer as possible.
Industrial Diseases: Compensation
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (1) how much has been paid to each individual law firm from the Coal Health Compensation scheme in respect of cases of (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder to date; [54933]
10 May 2011 : Column 1097W
(2) how much has been paid to each individual law firm under the Coal Health Compensation scheme in respect of claims for cases of (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from each constituency to date; [54935]
(3) how many claims for compensation for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under the Coal Health Compensation scheme have been received from each law firm to date. [54937]
Charles Hendry: Tables showing the number of claims received and costs paid as at December 2010 to claimants' solicitors handling claims under the Coal Health Compensation schemes for vibration white finger (VWF) and for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) will be made available in the Libraries of the House, which will provide breakdown by legal firm and the total amount paid to each firm.
We do not have the costs for individual law firms broken down by parliamentary constituency.
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change how much compensation has been awarded under the Coal Health Compensation scheme for cases of (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to recipients in each constituency to date. [54934]
Charles Hendry: The amount of compensation awarded as at April 2011 under the Coal Health Compensation schemes for vibration white finger (VWF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is shown in the tables which will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (1) how many claims for vibration white finger under the Coal Health Compensation scheme received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally have been processed to date; [54938]
(2) how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation scheme for vibration white finger (a) received from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally are outstanding; [54936]
(3) how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally are outstanding; [54939]
(4) how many claims under the Coal Health Compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received (a) from North Durham constituency and (b) nationally have been processed to date. [54940]
Charles Hendry: The following table shows the number of scheme claims received and processed for North Durham and nationally for vibration white finger (VWF) and for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as at April 2011. There are no outstanding claims for North Durham.
10 May 2011 : Column 1098W
| Number | |||||
| Claims received North Durham | Claims settled North Durham | Total claims received | Total claims settled | Compensation claims outstanding | |
| (1) For the COPD scheme, there are only three claimants awaiting an offer or denial. (2) All scheme VWF compensation claims have been settled. There are two claims of which solicitors’ costs are yet to be paid. | |||||
Oil: Refineries
Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the measures contained in Budget 2011 on the UK downstream oil industry, including refining. [54001]
Charles Hendry: HM Treasury is responsible for budgetary policy and has confirmed that its sectoral analysis did not suggest a significant impact. DECC has not made a separate detailed assessment but our work suggests that the economics of oil refining should not be affected by taxation changes on North sea oil production. Businesses, including the downstream oil industry, have been supported by the 2% reduction in corporation tax this April.
Renewable Energy: Feed-in Tariffs
Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change what the evidential basis was for the decision to cap expenditure on the feed-in tariff scheme as part of the comprehensive spending review; and for what reason the decision was taken. [52932]
Justine Greening: I have been asked to reply.
Feed-in tariffs entail levy-funded spending and are classified by the Office for National Statistics as tax and spend for National Accounts purposes. They add to total tax and spending levels and impose costs on household and business energy bills. It is therefore important that these impacts are controlled.
Home Department
Antisocial Behaviour
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations she has received on levels of antisocial behaviour; and if she will make a statement. [54763]
James Brokenshire: The Home Office receives numerous representations from members of the public who are concerned about the levels of antisocial behaviour in their area. That is why, on 7 February, we published the consultation document “More effective responses to antisocial behaviour”. It sets out the Government's proposals to streamline and improve the toolkit available to the police and their local partners to deal with antisocial behaviour, as a key part of wider reforms that will make agencies more accountable to the public for the way they respond to local crime and policing priorities. The consultation runs until 17 May.
10 May 2011 : Column 1099W
Asylum
Mr Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to the public purse was of (a) providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers, (b) processing asylum applications and (c) deporting unsuccessful asylum seekers in each of the last three years. [53143]
Damian Green: The cost of providing accommodation and support to asylum seekers in each of the last three years is given in the following table. It is not possible to provide the cost of processing asylum applications without incurring disproportionate cost.
It is also not possible to provide the cost of deporting asylum seekers as the UK Border Agency does not record these costs separately. The National Audit Office report “Management of Asylum Applications by the UK Border Agency”, published on 23 January 2009 and available to view at:
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/management_of_asylum_appl.aspx
provides a range of upper- and lower-end cost estimates for people who are detained or removed in different circumstances (for example, for a single undetained adult who is removed after exhausting his/her appeal rights, the process will cost between £7,900 and £17,000 excluding accommodation and support costs, and between £12,000 and £25,600 including accommodation and support costs). A copy of this report is available in the House Library.
| Cost of accommodation and support for asylum-seekers | |||
| 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | |
| Note: The figures for 2010-11 are unaudited and are subject to possible adjustment. Figures-for 2008-09 and 2009-10 are taken from the audited accounts of the UK Border Agency. | |||
Teresa Pearce:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 312W, on asylum, in which month of 2011 the UK Border Agency expects to conclude the backlog of legacy asylum claims; and what instructions have been issued to UK Border
10 May 2011 : Column 1100W
Agency staff on how to respond to enquiries by claimants on the conclusion of their claims. [53697]
Damian Green [holding answer 3 May 2011]: The UK Border Agency provides regular updates on performance of the “legacy” cases, including a breakdown into grants, removals and “other” cases such as duplicates or errors, to the Home Affairs Select Committee.
On 2 March, the Agency reported to the Home Affairs Select Committee that it had concluded over 403,000 cases as at 31 January 2011.
The UK Border Agency has completed its review of all the outstanding “legacy” cases. A small unit has been set up in the north-west region. This will continue concluding those cases that have been reviewed but not concluded. They will also monitor the controlled archive and take forward any cases that should come to light. Claimants have details of the case team dealing with their application. To improve the service that the UK Border Agency provides whilst minimising the impact of calls on productivity, claimants can contact the case team in writing or via a dedicated e-mail inbox with enquiries relating to their claims.
Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people (a) applied for asylum, (b) were granted asylum on initial decision, (c) were granted exceptional leave to remain on initial decision, (d) were granted humanitarian protection on initial decision, (e) were granted discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, (f) were refused either asylum, exceptional leave to remain, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, (g) appealed their initial decision, (h) were granted asylum on appeal, (i) were granted some form of protection after appeal, (j) were refused asylum or other protection after appeal, (k) were the subject of enforced removals, (l) were the subject of notified voluntary departures, (m) were the subject of assisted voluntary returns and (n) were former asylum seekers who it is established have left the UK without informing the immigration authorities in each year from 1997 to 2010. [54493]
Damian Green [holding answer 9 May 2011]: The number of people who applied for asylum, were granted asylum on initial decision, were granted exceptional leave to remain on initial decision, were granted humanitarian protection on initial decision, were granted discretionary leave to remain on initial decision, were refused asylum, exceptional leave to remain, humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain on initial decision—(a) to (f)—is provided in the following table:
| Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions (1,) () (2) 1997 to 2010 | |||||||
| Number of principal applicants | |||||||
| Initial decisions | |||||||
| Cases considered under normal procedures | |||||||
| Total initial decisions | Refusals | ||||||
| Total applications | Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum | Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain | Not recognised as a refugee but granted humanitarian protection | Not recognised as a refugee but granted discretionary leave | Total refused | ||
10 May 2011 : Column 1101W
10 May 2011 : Column 1102W
| n/a = not applicable (1) Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five ( * = one or two). Figures may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions. (3) Provisional figures. | |||||||
The number of people who appealed their decision, were allowed at appeal, were dismissed at appeal—(g) to (j)—is provided in the following table. Information on whether the applicant was granted asylum or some other form of protection at appeal is unavailable and would be available only on examination of individual records at disproportionate costs.
| Asylum appeals received and determined at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal/First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (1, ) (2) , excluding dependants, 1997 to 2010 | ||||||
| Number principal applicants | ||||||
| Appeals determined (3) | ||||||
| Appeals by the Home Office (4) | Appeals received by the IAA/AIT (5) | Total determined (5) | Total allowed (9) | Total dismissed (9) | Total withdrawn (6) (,) (9) | |
| n/a = not applicable (1) Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five (— = 0; * = one or two) and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) The Tribunals Service Immigration and Asylum (TSIA), consisting of the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (FTTIAC and UTIAC) replaced the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) on 15 February 2010. All figures for appeals determined are cases dealt with by immigration judges at the AIT or FTTIAC. (3) All figures for appeals determined are cases dealt with by adjudicators/judges at the IAA or AIT. (4) Data for 2000 are based on manual counts of data received in the Appeals Support Section of the Home Office. Some cases were received elsewhere in the Home Office before being forwarded to ASS and so may be counted at a later date than when they arrived in the Home Office. Figures for 1997 to March 2005 are based on Immigration and Nationality Directorate electronic sources. From April 2005 appeals are lodged directly with the AIT. (5) Based on information supplied by the Ministry of Justice. “Appeals received” data include some cases lodged at the Home Office and transferred to the AIT/FTTIAC. The data also include a small number of cases initially flagged as being potentially invalid or out of time for which the papers were examined by an immigration judge and determined to be valid and/or in-time. These cases then proceed through the appeal system. (6) Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as those withdrawn by the appellant. (7) Provisional figures. (8) Provisional management information supplied by the Ministry of Justice. (9) Estimated figures (to March 2005). Sources: Prior to April 2005: Presenting Officers Unit, Home Office; from April 2005: Ministry of Justice, Determinations do not necessarily relate to appeals received in the same period. | ||||||
10 May 2011 : Column 1103W
The number of removals and voluntary departures from the UK of principal asylum applicants, broken down by type of departure—(k) to (n)—is provided in the following table. It is not possible to provide the exact split requested; in line with published statistics, “enforced removals” and “notified voluntary departures” have been grouped together.
| Removals and voluntary departures (1,2 ) of principal asylum cases, by type, 1997 to 2010 | ||||
| Number of departures (3) | ||||
| Enforced removals and notified voluntary departures (4,5) | Assisted voluntary returns (6) | Other voluntary departures (7) | Total principal asylum cases | |
| n/a = not applicable (1 )Figures are rounded to the nearest five and may not sum to the totals shown because of independent rounding. (2) Figures exclude dependants. (3) Removals and voluntary departures recorded on the system as at the dates on which the data extracts were taken. (4) Due to a reclassification of removal categories, figures include asylum removals which have been performed by enforcement officers using port powers of removal and a small number of cases dealt with at juxtaposed controls. (5) Since October 2006, figures include persons leaving under facilitated return schemes. (6) Since January 1999, persons leaving under assisted voluntary return programmes run by the International Organization for Migration. May include some cases leaving under the Assisted Voluntary Return for Irregular Migrants Programme (since December 2004) and some cases where enforcement action had been initiated. (7) Since January 2005, persons who it has been established left the UK without informing the immigration authorities. (8 )Provisional figures. Figures will under-record due to data cleansing and data matching exercises that take place after the extracts are taken. | ||||
Further information on asylum is available from the Control of Immigration publications available in the Library of the House and the Home Office Science website at:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics
Bigamy
Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences of bigamy were recorded in each year since 2007; and what proportion of such offences resulted in (a) court proceedings against suspected perpetrators, (b) convictions and (c) sanction detections. [53442]
Nick Herbert: The information is not available in the form requested.
Figures for the number of offences of bigamy recorded by the police and the number detected by means of a sanction detection are given in the table. Statistics on court proceedings, including convictions, are a matter for the Ministry of Justice.
10 May 2011 : Column 1104W
Recorded crime and court proceedings statistics are recorded in quite different ways. Recorded crime data are provided on a financial year basis and count offences whereas court proceedings data are on a calendar year basis and count offenders. Therefore, these two separate data-sets are not directly comparable.
| Offences of bigamy recorded by the police and detected by means of a sanction detection (1) —2007-08 to 2009-10 | |||
| Number of offences | Number of sanction detections | Percentage detected by means of a sanction detection | |
| (1) Detection rates are a ratio of crimes detected in a period to crimes recorded in a period. They are not based on tracking whether individual crimes recorded in a period have eventually been detected. | |||
Crime
Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the crime detection rate in (a) each police force and (b) England and Wales was in each year since 2007-08. [53397]
Nick Herbert: The information requested is given in the table.
Detection rates are a ratio of crimes detected in a period to crimes recorded in a period. They are not based on tracking whether individual crimes recorded in a period have eventually been detected.
From 1 April 2007 the rules governing recording of non-sanction detections were revised to reduce the scope within which they can be claimed to a very small limited set of circumstances. This has significantly reduced the number of non-sanction detections which has been reflected in the overall detection rates.
| Detection rate for all offences recorded by the police in England and Wales (1) | |||
| Percentage detected | |||
| Police force area | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
10 May 2011 : Column 1105W
| (1) Detection rates are a ratio of crimes detected in a period to crimes recorded in a period. They are not based on tracking whether individual crimes recorded in a period have eventually been detected. | |||
Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed per head of population in each police force area in each year since 2007-08. [53407]
Nick Herbert: The available information relates to the number of offences recorded by the police per 1,000 population and is given in the following table.
| Rate of total recorded crime per 1,000 population, by police force area | |||
| Rate per 1,000 population | |||
| Police force area | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
10 May 2011 : Column 1106W
| (1) Not applicable. | |||