here - United Kingdom Parliament

1261W
Written Answers
6 JUNE 2013
Written Answers
1262W
Travel
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development what her Department’s budget
for ministerial travel for (a) the Government Car Service,
(b) private hire vehicles, (c) taxis, (d) rail, (e) aviation
and (f) other is for (i) 2013-14, (ii) 2014-15 and (iii)
2015-16. [157529]
Mr Duncan: The total budget allocation for all ministerial
and private office travel is set out as follows.
(i) 2013-14: £479,000
(ii) 2014-15: £465,000
(iii) 2015-16: Budget allocation for this period has yet to be
agreed.
Exact figures for only ministerial travel cannot be
provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for
International Development how much her Department
spent on ministerial travel by (a) Government Car
Service, (b) private hire vehicles, (c) taxis, (d) rail, (e)
aviation and (f) other means in each year of the current
Parliament. [157550]
Mr Duncan: DFID entered into a new official car
contract with the London Car Service in May 2013 to
ensure greater value for money than the previous
arrangement. The contract will be reviewed after 12
months. For information on previous years expenditure
I refer the hon. Member to the Department for Transport’s
written ministerial statements of 28 October 2010, Official
Report, column 23WS, 16 January 2012, Official Report,
column 30WS, and 20 December 2012, Official Report,
column 126WS. Details for 2012-13 will be published in
due course.
Details of overseas travel by Ministers are published
quarterly and are available on the Department for
International Development’s website.
DFID is unable to provide details of ministerial
spend on private hire vehicles, taxis and rail without
incurring disproportionate cost.
EDUCATION
Children: Protection
Stephen Gilbert: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what assessment has been made of the likely
effects of the provisions of the Children and Families
Bill to seek child protection outcomes within a 26-week
window. [158179]
Mr Timpson: The 26 week time limit for the completion
of care and supervision cases was recommended by the
Family Justice Review, which found clear evidence that
lengthy care cases can have harmful long-term effects
on a child’s development, expose children to more risk,
and cause already damaged children further distress
and anxiety.
The 26 week time limit clause in the Children and
Families Bill does not change the fact that the child’s
welfare remains the court’s paramount consideration
when deciding whether to grant a care or supervision
order. The court will have the power to extend the-26
week time limit where it is necessary to resolve proceedings
justly.
Prior to the introduction of the Bill, we conducted a
full assessment of the impact of the proposed measures.
This assessment found that children in care proceedings
are expected to benefit from quicker decisions, with
more timely decision making on their futures and,
therefore, reduced periods of uncertainty. We expect
permanent placements to be found more swiftly for
children, meaning stability for the child will be achieved
earlier. The full assessment of impact for the Family
Justice clauses in the Bill can be found on the DFE
website 1 .
We are already starting to see progress in the system.
Average case durations have come down from 56 weeks
at the time of the Family Justice Review to just over 45
weeks in the last reporting period.
We are also using a piloting provision within the
court rules to make interim adjustments to the Public
Law Outline (PLO) for judicial case management. The
new PLO has been significantly reduced in length and
incorporates several key changes to underpin a move
towards a system which routinely concludes care cases
within 26 weeks.
Areas will be able to implement the new approach in
a phased way from 1 July 2013, depending on local
readiness. There is an expectation that all areas will
implement the new PLO by 7 October 2013, although
there will be some flexibility for those agencies/local
authorities which may still not be able to comply with
all the new provisions within this time scale.
1
http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/
departmentalinformation/childrenandfamiliesbill/a00221161/
children-families-bill
Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Children
Review
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for
Education what steps he is taking to implement the
recommendations of the Bailey Review on the
commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood,
published in June 2011. [158381]
Mr Timpson: All of the recommendations in the
Bailey Review were to be taken forward by industry and
regulators except for the stocktake of progress, which
was for the Government. The stocktake has been completed
and a progress report was published on 24 May. The
stocktake found that good progress has been made on a
voluntary basis and parents should now find that: it is
easier to block adult and age-restricted material on the
internet and individual devices; there is less highly
sexualised imagery in advertising in public places; prewatershed
television programming is more suitable for
family viewing; children’s clothes are more likely to be
age-appropriate; and it is easier to make complaints,
using the ParentPort website, about unsuitable advertising,
television programmes and video games seen by children.
The Government will now take action to: make sure
that online music videos carry labels that show their age
suitability, in order to protect children from harmful
material; and make it even easier for parents to keep
their children safe online, wherever they are and in
whatever way they might access the internet.