Blog

Andrew Rosindell – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Rosindell on 2014-01-22.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many citizens of other EU member states currently living in the UK receive child benefit.

Nicky Morgan

HMRC are not able to provide the information in the manner requested. HMRC do not record the nationality of the claimant receiving Child Benefit for children living in another member state.

Published Child Benefit statistics provide annual estimates of the number of families and children claiming. The latest available (August 2012) show that there were 7.92 million families, responsible for 13.77 million children and qualifying young people receiving Child Benefit.

The main purpose of Child Benefit is to support families in the UK. Consequently, the rules generally do not provide for them to be paid in respect of children who live abroad.

Nevertheless, Child Benefit is a family benefit under EC Regulation 883/2004. This regulation protects the social security rights of nationals of all member states of the European economic area, including the UK, and Switzerland when they exercise their rights of free movement under EU law.

HMRC holds information on the number of Child Benefit awards under EC Regulation 883/2004. As at 31 December 2013, there were 20,400 ongoing Child Benefit awards under the EC Regulation in respect of 34.268 children living in another member state.

This is a fall of 3,682 (15.3%) awards in respect of 5,903 (14.7%) fewer children since 31 December 2012.

The breakdown by member state is as follows:

*We have withheld the number where it is fewer than 5, as there is risk that the information could be attributed to an identifiable person, which would prejudice their right to privacy and would therefore be a breach of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act.

Child Benefit

Country of residence of children	Number of awards	Number of children

Austria	23	37
Belgium	75	140
Bulgaria	186	245
Croatia	*5	*5
Cyprus	39	61
Czech Republic	124	203
Denmark	13	23
Estonia	45	65
Finland	12	23
France	789	1429
Germany	283	495
Greece	44	69
Hungary	136	196
Iceland	*5	*5
Italy	156	273
Latvia	797	1091
Liechtenstein	0	0
Lithuania	1215	1712
Luxembourg	7	14
Malta	15	22
Norway	30	61
Poland	13174	22093
Portugal	202	309
Republic of Ireland	1231	2505
Romania	230	392
Slovakia	692	1232
Slovenia	11	21
Spain	600	1019
Sweden	49	95
Switzerland	77	150
The Netherlands	142	288

Totals	20400	34268

As announced in the 2014 Budget, to prevent EEA migrants claiming benefits they are not entitled to, the Government will increase compliance checks to establish whether EEA migrants meet the entitlement conditions to receive Child Benefit

Under domestic law, in order to claim Child Benefit EEA Migrants must be present in the UK, ordinarily resident and have a right to reside in the UK and their children must live in the UK.

The recent changes to migrants’ access to benefits announced by the Government sends a strong message that the UK benefit system is not open to abuse, as well as deterring those who may seek residence in the UK primarily to claim benefits.

Strengthening compliance checks will help prevent EEA migrants from claiming, and continuing to claim, benefits they are not entitled to. Checks will be applied to both new claims and existing awards.

01/12/2022

Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2014-01-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what the average proportion of market rent of all affordable housing is in each London borough.

Kris Hopkins

I have placed in the Library of the House, a table showing affordable and social rents as a proportion of market rents, for each London borough.

The affordable rent model allows for more new affordable housing to be delivered with lower levels of taxpayer capital subsidy and by levering in more private investment. The programme is helping deliver £15 billion of private investment in new affordable housing over the current spending review, alongside £4.5 billion of public investment. Social rent and affordable rent go hand in hand; both help provide accommodation for those on low incomes.

As the National Audit Office has observed: “the Department selected the best delivery model open to it for the funds it had available” and “the Department has so far achieved its policy objective to maximise the number of homes delivered within the available grant funding” (National Audit Office, “Financial viability of the social housing sector: introducing the Affordable Homes Programme”, 4 July 2012, HC465, pp.6-7).

I note in his recent Fabian Society pamphlet, the rt. hon. Member has complained that affordable rent would result in rents of 80 per cent of market rents in London. Whilst it varies by borough, as the table shows, for example, affordable rent levels are 38 per cent of average local market rents in Camden, 48 per cent in Islington, 54 per cent in Southwark and 35 per cent in Westminster, reflecting local circumstances.

I also observe that the housing policy announced at the Labour Party Conference in October 2012 also endorsed the use of affordable rents to build new homes; albeit this point is frequently lost on many Labour hon. Members who proceed to attack the basic principle of affordable rent in allowing more new affordable homes to be built using taxpayer capital subsidy.

01/12/2022

Mr Clive Betts – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mr Clive Betts on 2014-01-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many households in England received a weekly general, all-purpose, rubbish collection service in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012 and (d) 2013.

Brandon Lewis

Labour’s legacy

The last Labour Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections and hitting hard-working families with new bin charges.Their ‘Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme’ advocated “collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”, and sought to “nationalise this policy among local authorities”. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with the zeal of a convert.

Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules; further legislation in 2008 watered down councils’ legal duties to collect rubbish. Guidance issued in 2005 advised town halls that councillors should be bullied to stop them opposing the axing of collections or proposing to restore weekly collections. It also recommended that cutting collections should be done after local elections – to avoid the nuisance of democratic opposition. The Government funded the covert imposition of “bin brother” microchips into families’ bins. The 2009 Pre-Budget Report made clear that a further wave of bin cuts were being planned. In short, the “Town Hall Talibin” doubled council tax and halved bin collections.

We disagree. This Government believes that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the £122 a month in council tax that a typical household pays (Band D), especially given the typical refuse collection service only costs councils £6 to £7 per month to provide.

What we’ve done

We have taken a series of steps to help households:

· Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling;

· Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide).

· Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;

· Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;

· Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;

· Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice;

· Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement);

· Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;

· Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;

· Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;

· Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;

· Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from “Binquisition” inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;

· Changing building regulations to tackle ‘bin blight’; and

· Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.

In short, this has been a fundamentally different approach from the Labour Government: we are working with families to help them go green, but believe in proper, regular and comprehensive collections for taxpaying households.

The configuration of services is complex. The table below, based on available estimates from WRAP, provide the most detailed information held on the breakdown of refuse and recycling collections of ‘smelly’ rubbish across councils in England.

Weekly collections of smelly rubbish

Councils	Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste	Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual and no separate food waste collection	Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual	Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual
Jun-11	33	11	19	189	45	7
Nov-11	31	9	20	190	52	10
Jan-12	33	8	20	189	54	11
Feb-12	33	8	17	182	58	11
Aug-12	39	8	21	181	61	12
Sep-12	39	8	20	179	62	12

Households	Weekly Residual + Separate Weekly Food Waste	Weekly Residual + Weekly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly Residual + fortnightly mixed food and garden waste	Weekly collection and no separate food waste collection	Weekly Food Waste + Fortnightly Residual	Weekly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual
Jun-11	1,296,296	405,719	718,292	10,480,876	1,750,654	353,001
Nov-11	1,079,984	479,151	998,017	9,694,524	2,197,166	542,695
Jan-12	1,141,584	441,151	998,017	9,341,759	2,426,531	602,695
Feb-12	1,124,040	441,151	861,447	9,064,454	2,571,575	602,695
Aug-12	1,378,876	440,812	851,915	8,239,673	2,896,107	747,024
Sep-12	1,386,876	440,812	747,915	7,885,321	2,981,513	747,024

Fortnightly collections

Councils	Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual	Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection
Jun-11	36	143
Nov-11	41	142
Jan-12	41	144
Feb-12	44	149
Aug-12	47	145
Sep-12	49	147

Households	Fortnightly mixed food and garden waste + Fortnightly Residual	Fortnightly residual and no separate food waste collection
Jun-11	1,668,211	5,879,808
Nov-11	1,838,632	6,014,336
Jan-12	1,860,532	6,032,245
Feb-12	2,034,102	6,145,050
Aug-12	2,170,143	6,173,402
Sep-12	2,319,143	6,389,348

Note: Some councils may have a combination of the categories in the table below and have been counted under each one that they provide.

This shows that 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish. Had the Government not taken the actions it had, weekly collections would have disappeared in England by 2015. This simple assertion can be illustrated by the extinction of weekly collections in most of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved Administrations and policies of supporting fortnightly bin collections. Indeed, in Wales, the Labour-led Welsh Government now has a policy of supporting monthly bin collections (Welsh Government, Municipal Sector Plan Part 1, March 2011 and Welsh Government, Cabinet decision, Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, Additional Funding for Zero Waste Gurnos, February 2012).

We have stopped the rot, but there is more to do to support weekly bin collections. Many town hall jobsworths, over-zealous NGOs and vested interests in the waste industry remain blindly obsessed with restricting bin collections as a perverse policy goal in itself, and this is reflected in the figures in the table above. Indeed, even Keep Britain Tidy – which one would think would want regular rubbish collections to keep the streets clean – has been taken over by a NGO (Waste Watch) which campaigns for fortnightly bin collections. Bin collections are not viewed as a public service – but as a policy tool to deliver other arbitrary policy goals.

More to do

One option which should be considered is a minimum service standard – for example, the Household Waste Recycling Act 2003 already lays down minimum service requirements for recycling, and indeed, the Public Health Act 1875 introduced a duty on local authorities to collect rubbish; this duty was enhanced by the Public Health Act 1936 obliging them to collect household waste weekly which existed until 1974.

Moving forward, we are open to representations on how best to support frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service; stand up for taxpayers’ interests from arbitrary state charges and taxes; and protect the local environment, public health and local amenity from the nuisance of stinking rubbish.

01/12/2022

Lord Wills – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Wills on 2014-01-24.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, of the £108 million allocated in the 2010 Spending Review to cover the costs of introducing individual electoral registration, how much was spent in (1) 2010–11, (2) 2011–12, and (3) 2012–13; and how much is planned to be spent in (1) 2013–14, and (2) 2014–15.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

The spend to date and budgeted amounts are in the table below. The budget for the transition to Individual Electoral Registration (IER) was set in 2010, based on robust cost projections and included optimism bias in line with best practice. Careful management of budgets, combined with an agile approach to the development of the IT supporting the move to IER has helped to ensure that, to date, the programme has come in under budget.

The budget for IER has supported three rounds of pilots since 2011 and a complete national test of the IT that will support the automatic confirmation of at least 78% of current electors. It has enabled the allocation of resources to Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and partner organisations (£4.2m in the current financial year) to improve the completeness and accuracy of the Electoral Register.

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Actual:

£2,369,719

Actual:

£5,074,446

Budget:

£26,148,664

Budget:

£65,478,868

For financial year 2015/16, £148 million has been set aside for the costs of Individual Electoral Registration, the General Election and the 2015/16 Boundary Commission; specific budgets for each of these areas are yet to be allocated.

01/12/2022
John Woodcock – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by John Woodcock on 2014-01-27.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what representations he has received on the decision to withdraw the local welfare provision grant in 2015-16; and what consultation he undertook prior to making that decision.

Kris Hopkins

[Holding Reply: Thursday 30 January 2014]

DCLG Ministers and officials talk regularly to elected members and officers of local authorities about a range of issues.

The nationally run Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans were poorly targeted and failed to help those most in need. So, in 2012 as part of wider welfare reform, the Department for Work and Pensions abolished these national discretionary schemes and transferred responsibility to local authorities so they could deliver and tailor new local support as part of their existing services to their communities.

Councils can continue to provide support to those in their community who face financial difficulties or who find themselves in unavoidable circumstances, but there is no requirement to replicate the previous approach adopted by central government.

In contrast to a centralised grant system that was poorly targeted, under the Department for Work and Pensions’ reforms, councils can now choose how best to support local welfare needs within their areas – what is right for, say, Barrow and Furness may not be for other authorities. Some councils have already chosen to wind down their dedicated schemes following underspends.

In the next Spending Round period, from April 2015, central government continues to provide support to local authorities through general funds as part of the Coalition Government’s commitment to reducing ring-fencing and ending top-down Whitehall control.

The Department for Work and Pensions provided a separate fund for 2013-2015 and are carrying out a review of the provision to date.

01/12/2022
Mark Hendrick – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mark Hendrick on 2014-01-29.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much HM Courts and Tribunal Service spent on interpreters in 2011, 2012 and 2013; how much was spent on interpreting each language in those years; and how much was paid by defendants towards these costs.

Mr Shailesh Vara

The Department does not hold centrally all of the information that the Honourable Member has requested. Although we can not provide all the data on spend for the periods requested we can provide the annual spend for interpreters sourced through the Capita-TI Contract for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service as below:

Calendar Year

2012

2013

Total

£7,940,128.79

£15,537,821.29

Off Contract bookings made by HMCTS are outside of these spend figures. The number of bookings made off contract has substantially decreased since the start of 2012 with those bookings moving onto the Capita TI contract. This move from off contract to Capita TI is reflected in the changing year on year contract spend.

Spend for 2012 is based on an 11 month period as the contract did not go live until 30th January 2012. Expenditure has also increased in the second year of contract due to changes made to the contract in May 2013 and an estimated 20% increase on volume. £15m was saved in year one of the contract.

In this instance to provide the requested information on total annual spend and spend by language, would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold of £850.00 or 4 ½ working days.

In order to provide the information we would be required toobtain a number of large reports from electronic databases. The relevant data must then be manually extracted and collated. It would also require comparison against additional financial data before analysis. We estimate that this process for the spend data would take approximately 6 working days given the volume of data involved.

Defendants in criminal cases do not contribute towards the costs of interpreters that are provided by HMCTS. Charges for HMCTS provided interpreters in civil, family and tribunal cases are not passed directly to parties, although the costs may be recovered from court and tribunal fees in the jurisdictions where they apply.

01/12/2022
Sarah Champion – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sarah Champion on 2014-01-30.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effect of the Integrated Offender Management model piloted in the London Borough of Islington on reoffending rates in that area.

Damian Green

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Home Office. Integrated Offender Management is an important approach to cutting crime and reoffending in local areas. One of the key strengths of the approach is that the local model should be responsive to local needs and priorities as identified by the agencies and the partners in the area. For this reason, we have not imposed any particular model of Integrated Offender Management on areas, nor do we performance manage from Whitehall the crime and reoffending outcomes that local partners in areas such as the London Borough of Islington may be achieving through their local approach.

01/12/2022
Julian Sturdy – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Sturdy on 2014-01-30.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to support local planning authorities in (a) improving the viability of brownfield sites and (b) restarting stalled developments.

Nick Boles

Kick-starting stalled developments

This Government has introduced a series of measures to support stalled house building. These include:

· The Get Britain Building investment fund, providing over £500 million of finance which has so far helped start 11,893 new homes on stalled sites (as of February 2014).

· The Growing Places Fund is providing £770 million to deliver the infrastructure needed to unlock stalled schemes that will promote economic growth, create jobs and build homes. The fund has been fully allocated to Local Enterprise Partnerships and the devolved administrations to fund local projects.

· The £474 million Local Infrastructure Fund investment fund is supporting the delivery of upfront infrastructure for locally-supported, large scale housing sites and commercial development; it also provides capacity funding and brokerage support to local authorities to help them progress major schemes through the planning process. Nearly 80,000 homes have been unlocked on fifteen different sites. A further thirteen schemes are currently being assessed for investment, which we believe have the potential to deliver nearly 40,000 homes.

· The Autumn Statement committed an additional £1 billion of Local Infrastructure Fund funding to unlock locally-led housing schemes capable of delivering up to a further 250,000 new homes, and a second round prospectus will be published in due course.

· The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 enables developers with any Section 106 agreement to apply for a review of the affordable housing component to ensure development is not being made unviable by unrealistic requirements. Such unviable Section 106 agreements result in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits: a sensible review can result in more housing and more affordable housing.

· As the housing market has improved, we have ended the temporary measure (introduced by the last Administration) which allowed developers to roll forward their planning permissions; this ending of the measure will increase the incentive for developers to start on site before permission expires.

· We are also seeking to tackle the inappropriate use of planning conditions and speed up the process of gaining non-planning consents.

· The Budget announced a £525 million Builders’ Finance Fund to assist small and medium sized developers to access finance to support the delivery of housing schemes of between 15 and 250 units, helping kick-start stalled sites and deliver around 15,000 units over four years.

Supporting development on brownfield land

Freeing up brownfield land for regeneration and development is a key priority for my department. Our actions include:

· We have amended planning regulations to make it easier to change the use of an existing building from commercial to residential use, retail to residential use and agricultural to residential use. Permitted development rights have been expanded, including for flats above shops and allowing for new temporary uses. The Budget announced our intention to further extend these flexibilities.

· 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. We have also amended planning practice guidance to stress the importance of bringing brownfield land into use.

· We have abolished the last Government’s Pathfinder programme which sought to demolish homes and instead we have focused on refurbishment and getting empty homes into use. We are investing £160 million specifically to bring empty homes back into use. The New Homes Bonus rewards long-term empty homes being brought back into use and we have given councils the flexibility to remove tax subsidies given to empty homes, and use the money to keep the overall rate of council tax down. The number of empty homes in England has fallen to its lowest rate ever according to the Empty Homes Agency.

· My Department has been 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.

· We are working with the Mayor of London to unlock the construction of 11,000 new homes at Barking Riverside, and extend transport infrastructure.

· A new garden city will be delivered on brownfield land in Ebbsfleet, supported by an Urban Development Corporation and up to £200 million of public investment. The last Administration pledged in its 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan to regenerate Ebbsfleet but failed to deliver.

· The new Right to Contest builds on our existing Community Right to Reclaim Land, which lets communities ask that under-used or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use. This new Right applies to sites currently in use, but are not vital for operations. It gives businesses and members of the public an opportunity to challenge government on the best use of its estate.

· We have a comprehensive programme to sell surplus public sector land and property, freeing up taxpayers’ money and providing land for new homes. As at the end of December we had released surplus government owned land with capacity for 68,000 homes to be built. We have strengthened the role of the Homes and Communities Agency through a targeted programme of transfers from other Government Departments and agencies. In addition, to ensure land is released efficiently, the Homes and Communities Agency will be Government’s land disposal agency. This builds on the Homes and Communities Agency’s expertise and experience of complex land remediation and disposals as well as their close relationships with local planning authorities.

· Through the Strategic Land and Property Review we have identified scope to generate £5 billion of receipts from government land and property between 2015 and 2020. This will put land and property into the hands of those who can exploit them for commercial purposes – creating opportunities for housing and economic development.

· Changes to Community Infrastructure Levy rules now provide an increased incentive for brownfield development, and extended exemptions for empty buildings being brought back into. We have recently published a consultation paper to lift Section 106 burdens on vacant buildings being returned to use.

· The Budget announced an Estate Regeneration fund which will provide £150 million to help kick start and accelerate the regeneration of housing estates.

I hope this outlines the decisive action that this Government is taking.

01/12/2022
Sadiq Khan – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Justice

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Sadiq Khan on 2013-11-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which contracts his Department holds with (a) Capita, (b) A4E, (c) G4S, (d) Serco, (e) GeoAMEY, (f) Sodexo and (g) Mitie; when each contract started; how much each contract is expect to cost over its lifetime; when each contract is due to end; whether there are any options in the contract for extension; whether any financial penalties have been incurred by each contractor to date; and whether each such contract has a break clause.

Jeremy Wright

I undertook to write to you when the information had been received.

The table contained within Annex A details the live contracts that the Department holds with Capita, G4S, Serco, GeoAmey, Sodexo and MITIE. The table provides you with details on the start and end dates of these contracts, the estimated value of the contract as advertised when the procurement process was initiated, extension options and whether there is a break clause. Where information pertaining to any of these questions is already in the public domain, you will find for ease of reference links to the Hansard extracts.

There are no contracts between the Department and A4E.

The table within Annex A provides details on financial penalties where this information is already available in the public domain. To obtain this information for all the contracts listed would incur disproportionate costs.

The details for the legacy Electronic Monitoring contracts between the Department and G4S and Serco have not been provided to you due to the ongoing criminal investigation into issues relating to these contracts.

01/12/2022
Kate Green – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kate Green on 2014-02-03.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the average waiting time for applicants for employment and support allowance is between submission of the ESA50 form and the date of the work capability assessment.

Mike Penning

The average time from submission of an ESA50 to the completion of a face-to-face Work Capability Assessment (for both Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit Reassessment), for the period from February 2013 to January 2014, was 64 working days

01/12/2022

Calendar Year	2012	2013
Total	£7,940,128.79	£15,537,821.29