Table C: Foreign national prisoners, by offence group, as of 30 June of each year, England and Wales
 20082009201020112012
 RemandImmediate custodial sentenceRemandImmediate custodial sentenceRemandImmediate custodial sentenceRemandImmediate custodial sentenceRemandImmediate custodial sentence

Violence against the person

493

1,494

481

1,643

475

1,710

508

1,741

399

1,821

Sexual offences

229

818

272

926

280

1,015

259

1,034

224

1,063

Robbery

146

641

168

593

213

641

186

702

216

731

Burglary

121

276

143

256

123

292

116

286

145

372

Theft and Handling

156

298

139

325

154

419

167

500

204

534

Fraud and Forgery

362

1,092

332

977

259

606

202

447

127

434

Drug offences

549

2,318

518

2,110

539

2,057

494

1,757

394

1,716

Motoring offences

17

142

8

122

15

110

12

130

8

97

Other offences

298

508

265

553

413

782

367

878

329

873

Offence not recorded

18

25

23

94

28

74

51

40

27

38

Data Sources and Quality: These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Prisoners: Wales

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2013, Official Report, column 361W, on prisoners: Wales, how many of the 901 prisoners have as their first language (a) English, (b) Welsh and (c) another language. [137475]

Jeremy Wright: The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as it would be necessary to contact those prisons holding the 901 remand and sentenced prisoners with a home address in North Wales and check individual prisoner records.

Prisons: Construction

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what budget has been allocated for the building of a new prison in either North Wales, North West England or London; and for what year any such budget has been allocated; [137489]

(2) what sites in North Wales have been identified for consideration for construction of a new prison. [137473]

Jeremy Wright: The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking feasibility work which will include an examination of operating and funding arrangements

16 Jan 2013 : Column 827W

and determining in more detail the most appropriate location, role and size of a new prison. The cost of a new prison will be dependant on the outcome of this work.

The Ministry of Justice will work with the relevant parties in the priority locations to identify potential sites once the feasibility work has been completed.

Prisons: Drugs

Nick de Bois: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what steps he is taking to reduce (a) the availability of drugs in prison and (b) the number of prisoners who develop a drug addiction while in prison; and if he will make a statement. [136147]

Jeremy Wright: NOMS has a comprehensive range of measures to tackle drugs. These include drug detection dogs, procedures to tackle visitors who seek to smuggle drugs and phones into prisons, and mobile phone detection technology. NOMS is also increasing the number of wings in prisons where prisoners can only stay if they remain abstinent from drugs. We are rolling out a networked IT intelligence system and providing prisons with short range mobile phone blockers which will help prisons prevent prisoners using mobile phones, which is often associated with drug supply.

NOMS is working closely with the Department of Health and service providers to create integrated, recovery orientated and outcome focused substance misuse services.

Prisons: Security

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 17 December 2012, Official Report, column 524W, on prisons: security, if he will list the instances of prisons requiring relocking, providing the details of the (a) prison where the incident occurred, (b) category of prisoners affected, (c) cost of the relocking per incident and whether this was paid for by his Department or a private provider, (d) how long each prison was in lock down as a result, (e) whether any prisoners were able to escape and (f)

16 Jan 2013 : Column 828W

the outcome of any investigation into the reason why relocking was required. [136357]

Jeremy Wright: The following table gives details of prisons that have needed to be relocked since 2010.

PrisonCategory of prisoner affectedCost of relocking (excluding VAT) (£)

HMP Swaleside

Category B

79,525

HMYOI Glen Parva

Young Offenders

173,608

HMYOI Warren Hill

Young Offenders

84,418

HMP Birmingham

Category B

415,276

The cost of relocking at HMP Birmingham was paid by the operator of the prison, G4S. The cost of relocking the remaining prisons was paid by the Ministry of Justice.

None of the prisons were placed in lockdown following the incidents and there were no escapes at any of the prisons. Following these incidents vigilance at the prisons was increased regarding key security and events that may lead to a prison needing to be relocked.

Probation

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many (a) assistant chief officers, (b) administrative and clerical staff, (c) probation officers and (d) probation services officers were employed by each probation trust in England and Wales in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12; [136354]

(2) how many (a) assistant chief officers, (b) administrative and clerical staff, (c) probation officers and (d) probation services officers were employed in the probation service in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12. [136355]

Jeremy Wright: Information on probation service staff in post by trust for 2010-11 and 2011-12 in England and Wales is contained in the following two tables:

Table 1: Probation service staff in post by trust—2010-11 (at 31 March 2011)(1)
Probation trustAssistant chief officerAdministrative and clerical staff(2)Probation officer(3)Probation services officer(4)Other staff(5)Total

Avon and Somerset

8.90

81.50

155.60

160.20

62.00

468.20

Bedfordshire

5.00

26.56

55.55

48.89

34.01

170.01

Cambridgeshire

4.60

37.37

109.86

54.61

20.01

226.45

Cheshire

6.80

73.59

116.12

90.28

42.55

329.34

Cumbria

2.00

24.61

57.90

37.30

36.21

158.02

Derbyshire

4.00

49.40

109.30

113.50

35.30

311.50

Devon and Cornwall

4.00

64.00

171.35

80.19

78.18

397.72

Dorset

3.00

31.10

66.70

72.00

31.30

204.10

Durham Tees Valley

8.37

78.29

219.30

163.28

55.71

524.95

Essex

8.00

113.46

104.90

202.86

36.99

466.21

Gloucestershire

1.85

35.77

48.53

28.55

29.93

144.63

Greater Manchester

16.00

262.91

440.46

224.48

178.79

1,122.64

Hampshire(6)

0.00

117.51

188.41

164.49

51.89

522.30

Hertfordshire

5.00

37.34

78.68

84.26

25.50

230.78

Humberside

3.00

87.88

149.40

106.18

42.16

388.62

Kent

4.40

83.44

138.48

1 03.02

82.44

411.78

Lancashire

6.00

92.27

221.21

112.05

90.83

522.36

Leicestershire

7.60

74.32

148.74

170.92

39.42

441.00

16 Jan 2013 : Column 829W

16 Jan 2013 : Column 830W

Lincolnshire

5.00

50.21

68.63

63.49

27.13

214.46

London

44.00

415.22

1,006.01

367.24

762.93

2,595.40

Merseyside

8.00

126.35

261.13

192.53

66.99

655.00

Norfolk and Suffolk

6.75

83.71

169.51

149.24

53.18

462.39

North Yorkshire

4.00

48.20

79.65

59.13

21.30

212.28

Northamptonshire

3.00

45.30

86.16

90.39

7.00

231.85

Northumbria

11.91

121.38

228.33

168.19

56.60

586.41

Nottinghamshire

6.03

107.02

168.23

115.91

126.51

523.70

South Yorkshire

11.99

65.79

248.26

171.46

40.88

538.38

Staffordshire and West Midlands

18.11

462.47

561.00

470.09

217.41

1,729.08

Surrey and Sussex

7.30

70.27

202.35

100.00

196.10

576.02

Thames Valley

5.00

101.17

207.98

199.96

66.42

580.53

Wales

13.00

214.98

369.16

304.74

168.17

1,070.05

Warwickshire

4.00

17.69

59.52

41.46

31.05

153.72

West Mercia

4.00

70.23

118.97

93.39

41.95

328.54

West Yorkshire

7.00

268.21

326.67

306.50

91.02

999.40

Wiltshire

3.49

35.54

52.45

27.06

38.96

157.50

Probation service

261.10

3,675.06

6,794.50

4,937.84

2,986.82

18,655.32

(1) The figures provided are a snapshot of permanent staff in post on 31 March 2011. (2 )Includes case administrators. (3) Includes senior probation officers, practice development assessors, probation officers and senior practitioners. (4) Includes treatment managers. (5) Includes chief executives, deputy chief executives, area/district managers, middle managers, other operational staff, psychologists, other support staff, trainee probation officers and other staff. (6) Hampshire Probation Trust classify all assistant chief officers as deputy chief officers; 5.60 FTE staff have therefore been included within the ‘Other staff’ category in the table for Hampshire.
Table 2: Probation service staff in post by trust—2011-12 (at 31 March 2012)(1)
Probation trustAssistant chief officerAdministrative and clerical staff(2)Probation officer(3)Probation services officer(4)Other staff(5)Total

Avon and Somerset

8.20

93.20

149.40

178.90

59.60

489.30

Bedfordshire

5.00

36.34

56.36

44.91

36.50

179.11

Cambridgeshire

5.00

33.59

98.08

50.60

20.11

207.38

Cheshire

5.80

78.59

117.26

79.05

41.32

322.02

Cumbria

3.00

21.50

52.00

41.31

37.63

155.44

Derbyshire

5.00

57.47

109.48

101.43

44.92

318.30

Devon and Cornwall

4.80

71.48

128.75

111.60

79.67

396.30

Dorset

5.00

30.90

59.50

65.80

28.10

189.30

Durham Tees Valley

8.46

76.09

213.87

162.28

58.88

519.58

Essex

9.00

121.86

98.10

194.74

38.29

461.99

Gloucestershire

1.85

37.50

46.96

26.85

31.48

144.64

Greater Manchester

13.00

266.35

413.88

227.62

127.34

1,048.19

Hampshire(6)

0.00

115.17

186.45

163.70

49.95

515.27

Hertfordshire

5.00

46.25

70.68

77.32

27.23

226.48

Humberside

3.00

81.98

139.17

93.34

39.68

357.17

Kent

5.40

86.10

140.51

139.53

48.61

420.15

Lancashire

10.00

89.98

211.25

125.72

85.30

522.25

Leicestershire

7.61

81.73

133.49

172.63

32.94

428.40

Lincolnshire

5.01

46.41

58.92

60.87

25.14

196.35

London

46.80

438.76

979.44

299.53

717.88

2,482.41

Merseyside

9.00

127.90

254.34

199.13

64.67

655.04

Norfolk and Suffolk

6.00

103.82

171.87

141.65

23.81

447.15

North Yorkshire

5.00

40.94

73.84

57.38

20.56

197.72

Northamptonshire

3.00

45.36

85.01

92.59

6.68

232.64

Northumbria

9.92

118.41

219.88

171.73

53.24

573.18

Nottinghamshire

5.00

107.80

153.29

110.19

126.73

503.01

South Yorkshire

9.80

65.31

233.04

166.05

38.28

512.48

Staffordshire and West Midlands

18.22

433.41

536.11

442.76

188.74

1,619.24

Surrey and Sussex

8.00

82.54

198.75

111.60

194.26

595.15

Thames Valley

5.00

109.41

201.49

201.96

64.37

582.23

Wales

12.41

137.26

357.29

252.05

234.14

993.15

16 Jan 2013 : Column 831W

16 Jan 2013 : Column 832W

Warwickshire

3.00

17.43

51.11

40.95

28.98

141.47

West Mercia

5.00

61.78

109.10

80.37

41.12

297.37

West Yorkshire

4.44

248.30

310.04

270.00

88.52

921.30

Wiltshire

3.29

34.40

51.35

29.45

30.63

149.12

Probation service

264.01

3,645.32

6,470.06

4,785.59

2,835.30

18,000.28

(1) The figures provided are a snapshot of permanent staff in post on 31 March 2012. (2) Includes case administrators. (3) Includes senior probation officers, practice development assessors, probation officers and senior practitioners. (4 )Includes treatment managers. (5) Includes chief executives, deputy chief executives, area/district managers, middle managers, other operational staff, psychologists, other support staff, trainee probation officers and other staff. (6) Hampshire Probation Trust classify all assistant chief officers as deputy chief officers; 5.60 FTE staff have therefore been included within the ‘Other staff’ category in the table for Hampshire.

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what the total caseloads of each probation trust in England and Wales were in each year since the introduction of the trusts. [136485]

Jeremy Wright: The total caseload of offenders supervised by each probation trust since the introduction of the current 35 trusts in England and Wales are provided in the following table for 2010 and 2011 (as at 31 December).

These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Total number of offenders supervised by the Probation Service, by Trust, as at 31 December, England and Wales
Trust20102011

Avon and Somerset

5,748

5,853

Bedfordshire

2,407

2,453

Cambridgeshire

3,069

2,914

Cheshire

3,652

3,443

Durham Tees Valley

6,952

6,722

Cumbria

1,912

1,884

Derbyshire

3,831

3,926

Devon and Cornwall

4,005

4,054

Dorset

1,959

1,809

Essex

6,407

5,958

Gloucestershire

1,771

1,741

Hampshire

6,345

6,083

West Mercia

3,662

3,610

Hertfordshire

3,666

3,640

Humberside

4,307

4,432

Kent

6,092

6,420

Lancashire

7,515

7,524

Leicestershire

3,738

3,823

Lincolnshire

2,176

2,156

Greater Manchester

16,307

16,066

Merseyside

8,312

7,949

Norfolk and Suffolk

4,643

4,505

Northamptonshire

2,935

3,026

Northumbria

6,980

6,882

Nottinghamshire

5,443

5,331

Thames Valley

6,694

6,516

Staffordshire and West Midlands

20,700

20,483

Surrey and Sussex

7,622

7,033

Warwickshire

1,750

1,603

Wiltshire

1,637

1,502

North Yorkshire

2,241

2,243

South Yorkshire

6,744

6,635

West Yorkshire

12,477

11,682

Wales

14,529

14,486

London

40,745

40,141

Publications

Jonathan Ashworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how often his Department produces a staff magazine. [137320]

Mrs Grant: The Ministry of Justice does not produce any staff magazines in hard copy. The production of MOJ staff magazine ‘Insight’ ceased in July 2012.

Reoffenders

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) what the reoffending rate was amongst people who are (a) White British, (b) Black Caribbean, (c) Black African, (d) Pakistani origin, (e) Indian origin, (f) Bangladeshi origin and (g) other in each year from 1 April 1997 to 1 April 2012; [136346]

(2) what the 12-month reoffending rates for each probation trust in England and Wales were in each year since the introduction of the trusts. [136487]

Jeremy Wright: These questions have been answered using the Ministry of Justice's published proven reoffending statistics for England and Wales. These statistics are published on a quarterly basis and the latest bulletin, for the period January to December 2010, was published on 25 October 2012.

Table 1 shows the one year proven reoffending rates in each year from 2000, 2002-2010, by ethnic group as recorded on the Police National Computer (PNC). Ethnicity data recorded on the PNC reflect the officer's view of the offender's ethnicity, and cannot be provided exactly as requested in the question. 2000 is the earliest year for which proven reoffending data exist on a comparable basis and data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data on court orders. Data for 2011 will be published on 31 October 2013.

Table 2 shows the number of adult offenders in England and Wales starting a court order, by probation trust, in each year from 2008 to 2010; and the proportion

16 Jan 2013 : Column 833W

that committed a proven reoffence within a one-year follow-up period (i.e. the one year proven reoffending rate).

The first six probation trusts were established from 1 April 2008 and a further two were established from 1 April 2009 under powers of the Offender Management Act 2007. On 1 April 2010, 27 new probation trusts were established resulting in all 42 former probation boards having been replaced by 35 probation trusts.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 834W

A proven reoffence is defined as any offence committed in a one-year follow-up period and receiving a court conviction, caution, reprimand or warning in the one-year follow-up. Following this one-year period, a further six-month waiting period is allowed for cases to progress through the courts.

Please note that proven reoffending statistics are available from the Ministry of Justice website at:

www.justice.gov.uk/statistics/reoffending/proven-re-offending

Table 1: Adult and juvenile proven reoffending data, by ethnicity, 2000, 2002 to 2010(1)
Ethnicity2000200220032004200520062007200820092010

White

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

28.8

29.8

29.4

28.2

27.8

27.7

27.4

27.6

26.9

27.4

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

532,421

535,312

554,121

555,395

578,147

610,632

633,736

609,851

576,462

533,994

           

Black

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

32.0

32.3

31.7

31.2

31.6

31.2

30.9

30.1

29.3

29.8

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

35,920

43,377

47,027

47,835

50,658

55,652

58,866

60,270

58,557

55,377

           

Asian

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

22.3

24.3

23.1

22.2

22.8

22.7

22.4

21.8

21.5

21.4

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

23,357

27,526

29,053

29,298

31,645

34,898

36,887

38,289

37,260

35,669

           

Other

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

20.0

20.3

19.9

19.5

20.5

20.4

20.5

18.7

18.4

18.2

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

3,745

4,822

5,988

6,522

7,109

7,399

7,442

8,074

8,312

8,217

           

Not recorded

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

6.5

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.8

8.9

8.6

9.0

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

21,581

21,028

22,850

23,002

28,031

33,938

29,543

19,043

16,771

15,565

           

All offenders

          

Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)

27.9

28.9

28.4

27.3

27.0

26.7

26.5

26.9

26.3

26.7

Number of offenders in cohort(2)

617,024

632,065

659,039

662,052

695,590

742,519

766,474

735,527

697,362

648,822

(1) Data are not available for 2001 due to a problem with archived data. (2) This does not represent all offenders—offenders who were released from custody or commenced a court order are matched to the police national computer database and a certain proportion of these offenders that cannot be matched are excluded from the offender cohort.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 835W

16 Jan 2013 : Column 836W

Table 2: Adult proven reoffending data, by probation trust based on first commencement from each trust, 2008-10
 200820092010
 Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)Number of offenders in cohort(1)Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)Number of offenders in cohort(1)Proportion of offenders who reoffend (%)Number of offenders in cohort(1)

Avon and Somerset

36.7

3,037

35.2

3,330

34.7

3,431

Bedfordshire

29.4

1,347

28.2

1,414

28.4

1,392

Cambridgeshire

35.8

1,910

35.4

1,832

35.1

1,974

Cheshire

32.0

2,663

31.0

2,722

30.3

2,633

Cumbria

39.0

1,617

36.5

1,432

35.4

1,437

Derbyshire

29.7

2,888

28.6

2,815

29.1

2,634

Devon and Cornwall

34.8

2,645

33.8

2,666

33.4

2,580

Dorset

32.7

1,430

34.5

1,428

31.8

1,329

Durham and Tees Valley

42.9

4,675

41.8

4,722

44.7

4,640

Essex

33.0

3,759

31.3

4,070

32.7

3,922

Gloucestershire

42.1

1,261

38.3

1,209

32.1

1,101

Greater Manchester

34.8

9,240

33.8

9,458

33.4

9,993

Hampshire

34.8

4,680

34.7

4,428

34.6

4,693

Hertfordshire

33.9

2,282

34.0

2,256

32.3

2,364

Humberside

37.7

2,807

36.9

2,895

33.6

2,930

Kent

34.0

3,671

33.7

3,843

33.4

3,756

Lancashire

38.6

4,826

38.9

4,866

39.0

5,007

Leicestershire

29.7

2,621

29.8

2,434

30.8

2,426

Lincolnshire

37.1

1,446

32.1

1,412

33.9

1,444

London

34.9

18,454

34.0

19,480

33.4

18,769

Merseyside

35.9

4,819

34.8

4,700

35.3

4,463

Norfolk and Suffolk

36.1

3,248

36.1

3,321

35.4

3,260

North Yorkshire

39.4

1,752

35.6

1,951

37.9

1,816

Northamptonshire

33.6

1,619

30.7

1,603

29.2

1,742

Northumbria

46.0

4,748

43.7

4,987

43.7

4,711

Nottinghamshire

36.3

3,531

36.0

3,578

36.2

3,679

South Yorkshire

36.6

4,453

34.9

4,601

35.4

4,548

Staffordshire and West Midlands

34.3

11,458

30.3

11,878

29.2

11,101

Surrey and Sussex

32.3

4,814

32.9

5,034

31.6

4,857

Thames Valley

35.1

4,086

33.8

3,722

32.9

3,984

Wales

36.8

9,361

37.0

9,594

35.9

9,666

Warwickshire

35.4

1,054

30.2

1,201

26.6

1,071

West Mercia

36.7

2,403

34.0

2,641

36.7

2,390

West Yorkshire

38.3

6,966

35.0

7,604

34.8

7,767

Wiltshire

34.4

1,140

34.2

1,142

33.3

1,123

Unknown/More than one

34.0

1,531

34.6

1,652

31.5

1,349

(1)This does not represent all offenders—offenders who commenced a court order are matched to the police national computer database and a certain proportion of these offenders that cannot be matched are excluded from the offender cohort.

Wales

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what visits (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have made to North Wales since May 2010. [135086]

Jeremy Wright: To date, there have been no visits to North Wales by Ministry of Justice Ministers since May 2010. However, the ministerial team is keen to visit all regions of the country and one of the team would be happy to visit in due course.

Written Questions

Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his Department's average response time to parliamentary questions has been since May 2010. [135042]

Mrs Grant: The Government are committed to providing the Procedure Committee with information relating to written PQ performance on a sessional basis and will provide foil information relating to the 2012-13 Session to the Committee at the end of the current Session. Statistics relating to performance for the 2010-12 Parliamentary Session (25 May 2012-1 May 2012) are available on the Parliament website as follows:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/procedure/P35_Memorandum_Leader_of_the_House_Monitoring_PQs.pdf

Data from the current Session 9 May 2012 to 18 December 2012 can be found in the following table broken down by written PQs and named day PQs. These figures have been obtained from a central database.

 Commons written parliamentary questions

Total number tabled and processed by Department

1,025

Number answered within five sitting days

935

16 Jan 2013 : Column 837W

Number answered between six and 10 days

25

Number answered later than 10 sitting days

51

Currently unanswered

14

 Named day written parliamentary questions

Total number tabled and processed by Department

502

Number answered in time

382

Number answered out of time

114

Currently unanswered

6

Communities and Local Government

Bellwin Scheme

Gavin Shuker: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which local authorities have claimed funding under the Bellwin scheme as a result of flooding in 2012-13 to date. [133752]

Brandon Lewis [holding answer 17 December 2012]: To date, in 2012-13, eight local authorities have submitted claims under Bellwin schemes activated for flood related incidents. Of these, three reported eligible costs above their Bellwin threshold and have been paid. Eligible costs below threshold may be taken into account for a future Bellwin scheme falling in the same financial year.

Bellwin flood related claims 2012-13
Local authoritiesClaims submittedClaims submitted exceeding threshold

Calderdale

Yes

Yes

Gateshead

Yes

Yes

Herefordshire

Yes

Yes

Dorset

Yes

Durham

Yes

Newcastle upon Tyne

Yes

North Tyneside

Yes

South Tyneside

Yes

Bellwin provides emergency financial assistance to local authorities, to help them meet uninsurable costs they incur when responding to a major emergency in their area. It is limited by statute (section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) to:

“costs of immediate action to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to inhabitants.”

Charities: Finance

Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what guidance he has issued to local authorities on funding for charities. [137002]

Mr Foster: Local spending decisions are a matter for local councils. They are best placed to consider the needs of their communities, and to determine the appropriate levels of funding for all types of spending.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 838W

In September 2011 the Department issued the Best Value guidance which clearly sets out the way that councils should work with the voluntary sector when facing difficult funding decisions. Local authorities should seek to avoid passing on disproportionate cuts and in particular:

Where an authority intends to reduce or end funding or other support, that at least three months notice, of the actual reduction, should be given;

Actively engage the organisation on both the future of the service and on any knock-on effect on assets; and

Allow the organisation and community to put forward options on how to reshape the service.

Good local authorities will be working with their local voluntary and community sector to make best use of their ability to deliver effective and innovative local services that people want.

Hazel Blears: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the effect of local government spending reductions on charities. [137008]

Mr Foster: We have made no such assessment. Local spending decisions are a matter for local councils. Good local authorities will be working with their local voluntary and community sector to make best use of their ability to deliver effective and innovative local services that people want.

In order to tackle the deficit left by the last Administration, we know that local authorities are faced with difficult decisions, which is why, in September 2011, this Department published the Best Value guidance which provides clear guidance as to the way they should work with the voluntary sector when facing those decisions.

The Government are committed to creating greater opportunities for the sector through opening up public services and supporting more intelligent commissioning through initiatives like the Social Value Act and the new Commissioning Academy. And the Community Rights contained in the Localism Act are also providing greater prospects for local communities and organisations to transform and shape their own local places and services. Figures from the Charity Commission indicate that total annual income of registered charities has continued to grow from £51.74 billion reported in 2009 to £58.48 billion reported now (at 31 December 2012), an increase of 13%.

Civil Disorder: Croydon

Steve Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what (a) funding and (b) other support his Department offered to businesses, communities and other affected parties in Croydon North constituency following the public disorder of August 2011; and what such support and funding has been provided. [136895]

Brandon Lewis: My Department has given substantial support to Croydon specifically to assist the area following the public disorder of August 2011:

£10 million from the London Enterprise Fund was paid to the Greater London Authority exclusively to assist with the medium-term regeneration of Croydon. As the Greater London Authority and the council were, and are, best placed to decide on the local priorities for supporting businesses and the wider community, decisions as to how to spend this funding have been a matter for

16 Jan 2013 : Column 839W

the Greater London Authority in partnership with Croydon borough council. Final investment decisions on the usage of the London Enterprise Fund rest with the authority.

Croydon borough council also received £993,749 under the post-riots Recovery Scheme and around £1,377,000 under the High Street Support Scheme. Croydon claimed under each 3 elements of the scheme: £131,000 for Business Hardship Relief, £250,000 for support to individual businesses and £996,000 for wider support to groups of businesses including promotional and marketing activity.

This funding has been provided either on a Croydon-wide basis or for specific projects or businesses and as such cannot be broken down by the Croydon North constituency.

Council Tax: Nottingham

Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of additional households in (a) Nottingham East constituency and (b) Nottingham City who will pay council tax in 2013-14 as a result of planned changes to council tax benefit. [137487]

Brandon Lewis: Under the new localised system, this is a matter for local authorities and the local policy they adopt; no central estimate or target has been made for Nottingham.

More broadly our reforms will give councils stronger incentives to support local firms, cut fraud, promote local enterprise and get people back into work. They will also contribute to the Government's deficit reduction programme. Welfare reform is vital to tackle the budget deficit we have inherited from the last Administration, under which council tax benefit expenditure doubled.

Derelict Land

Stephen Mosley: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps his Department is taking to support local authority planning departments to encourage the reuse of previously developed land. [136276]

Nick Boles: The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning should encourage the effective use of land by re-using brownfield land provided that it is not of high environmental value, and that local councils can set locally appropriate targets for using brownfield land.

However as brownfield land may be valuable environmentally or as a community asset we have not set a blanket target or priority on brownfield development. The previous Administration's target for development on brownfield land and for residential density helped push dwelling sizes down and prices up, which lead to unpopular development some of which was in back gardens. Local councils in conjunction with their communities are best placed to determine the appropriateness of any development in their areas.

We also are taking forward an innovative and wide ranging package of policies to encourage the effective use of brownfield land and redundant buildings. This includes making it easier to change the use of an existing building from commercial to residential.

The New Homes Bonus provides an incentive for communities to grow, and also to tackle empty homes. For its second year of operation alone, this rewards a

16 Jan 2013 : Column 840W

total increase in the effective housing stock of 159,000 dwellings (22,000 of which are empty homes brought back into use).

We have also committed £160 million specifically to bringing over 11,000 empty homes back into use, £100 million of which is to bring empty homes back into use as affordable housing.

Our new community right to reclaim land will help communities to improve their local area by making information about land owned by public bodies more easily available. It will also help to ensure that underused or unused land owned by public bodies and some other organisations is brought back into beneficial use.

Rapid progress has been made to free up underused or surplus public land, and we have identified land with the capacity for over 102,000 homes. To get development moving, we will be looking to extend the use of build now, pay later models—meaning developers do not have to find the money upfront for the land but can pay as the development gets under way, or homes are sold. This will help tackle cash flow problems which can act as a barrier to house building.

In response to emerging conclusions from a review chaired by Tony Pidgley, chairman of the Berkeley Group, the Government will accelerate the release of surplus public sector land by strengthening the role of Homes and Communities Agency outside London through a targeted programme of transfers from other Government Departments and agencies.

We will also work to accelerate disposals by preparing the land for market and providing a single “shop window” for all surplus public sector land. We will work with the Mayor of London with a view to developing a similar approach in London, and to resolve how other measures are delivered for the benefit of Londoners.

My Department is also supporting the Olympic legacy, driving renewal and regeneration in east London, replacing over 740 acres of polluted, low-grade industrial land and premises with new sports and community facilities, parks, homes, shops and transport infrastructure.

Mr Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what steps he plans to take to encourage a more imaginative and creative approach to developing brownfield sites for residential purposes. [136640]

Nick Boles: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) (PQ 136276) answered today.

Homelessness: Ashfield

Gloria De Piero: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate he has made of the number of homeless young people in Ashfield constituency in each year from 2007 to date. [136941]

Mr Prisk: The following table shows both the number of homelessness acceptances of households where the applicant is aged 16-24 and the number of applicants who are considered to be in priority need because they are aged 16-17 or 18-20 and formerly in care:

16 Jan 2013 : Column 841W

Homeless young people in Ashfield
  (b) Homelessness acceptances for priority need categories relating to young people
 (a) Homelessness acceptances with applicant aged 16 to 24(i) Applicant 16 or 17yearsold(ii) Applicant formerly in care and 18 to 20yearsold

2007

11

0

0

2008

12

0

0

2009

15

0

0

2010

10

0

0

2011

5

1

0

2012 (to 30 September)

8

1

0

Total

61

2

0

Note: Figures from category (a) above cannot be added to those from category (b) to give an overall total because they are the results of breaking down the same total number of homelessness acceptances. Source: P1E returns from local authorities.

A robust homelessness safety net remains in place for young homeless people. Local authorities have a statutory duty to house 16 and 17-year-olds, care leavers under the age of 21, and people over 21 who are vulnerable as a result of being in care.

The Ministerial Working Group on Homelessness published their second report in August 2012, which stresses the importance of supporting vulnerable young people to make a successful transition to adulthood. It champions a model of a ‘positive youth accommodation pathway' for those who cannot stay within the family network or are leaving care. The report can be obtained from the Department's website at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/making-every-contact-count-a-joint-approach-to-preventing-homelessness

We secured an additional £70 million last year to help local agencies prevent and tackle rough sleeping, single homelessness and repossessions. This is on top of the £400 million we are investing for homelessness prevention over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15) which includes £10.8 million to help single people access private rented sector accommodation.

Homelessness: Tower Hamlets

Rushanara Ali: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) how many children are homeless in (a) Tower Hamlets and (b) Bethnal Green and Bow constituency; [136606]

(2) what steps he is taking to address child homelessness in (a) Tower Hamlets and (b) Bethnal Green and Bow constituency. [137161]

Mr Prisk: As at 30 September 2012, 3,540 dependent or expected children were in temporary accommodation as members of households accommodated by the London borough of Tower Hamlets. This compares with comparative figures of 5,084 in September 2008 and 4,026 in September 20,09. This includes households placed by the authority in accommodation within another local authority area, for which separate figures are not collected.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 842W

Looked at another way, of the 144 households accepted as owed the main homelessness duty in Tower Hamlets between 1 July and 30 September 2012, 101 included at least one dependent child. This compares with 139 households with at least one dependent child in September 2008 and 103 in September 2009.

The Department does not collect corresponding figures to those above for individual parliamentary constituencies, except where they happen to be co-terminus with the area of a local authority. This is not the case for the Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, and so figures for the constituency are not available.

We are investing £400 million in homelessness prevention over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15). On top of that we announced an additional £70 million last year to tackle single homelessness and prevent repossessions.

On 4 December, I held a roundtable meeting with 18 London local authorities with high homelessness numbers (including families with children in temporary accommodation) to discuss the issues involved and action they are taking to resolve them. Tower Hamlets were represented at the meeting.


Non-domestic Rates: Environment Protection

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the publication in draft of the Non-Domestic Rating (Renewable Energy Projects) Regulations 2012 on 25 October 2012, whether he plans to make an announcement on non-domestic rating for other forms of low carbon technology. [136898]

Brandon Lewis: Following the introduction of business rates retention in April 2013, local authorities will be able to benefit from the non-domestic rates paid by all forms of low carbon technology.

Hilary Benn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether he plans to introduce business rate retention measures for (a) new nuclear projects and (b) other forms of low carbon energy projects. [136899]

Brandon Lewis: The Government have confirmed that we will introduce business rates retention from April 2013. From that date, local authorities will be able to benefit from growth in business rates income, including from new nuclear projects and other forms of low carbon energy projects.

Planning Permission

Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment he has made of the compliance of local authorities with the Construction and Design Management Regulations 2007 in respect of the appointment of a principal contractor for projects where the local authority is also the local planning authority; and if he will make a statement. [137071]

Nick Boles [holding answer 15 January 2013]: DCLG has made no such assessment. General compliance with the Construction and Design Management Regulations 2007 is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

16 Jan 2013 : Column 843W

Property Development: Birmingham

Mr Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with reference to the Birmingham Development Plan, what steps he has taken to ensure that the effect of new communities on local infrastructure will be assessed in the consideration of any application for development. [137187]

Nick Boles: The National Planning Policy Framework reinforces the role of plans as the primary basis for identifying what development is needed in an area, deciding where it should go and dealing with planning applications.

Local planning authorities should ensure that Local Plans are based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the characteristics and prospects of its area. As part of this an authority must show that it will have the infrastructure in place to deliver the policies within its plan.

Before a Local Plan can be adopted it must be subject to examination and deemed to have been found sound by an independent inspector at the Planning Inspectorate. A local planning authority must demonstrate that its plan is founded on a credible evidence base, taken into account views of the local community and other interested parties, is legally compliant and had regard to national policy.

The consultation on the pre publication draft of the Birmingham Development Plan(1) ended on 14 January 2013. The City Council expect to consult on the final version of the plan, prior to its submission to the Planning Inspectorate for examination, later in 2013.

(1)Note:

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031