To ask Her Majesty's Government what completion rate they expect for apprenticeships generally, and among disabled apprentices in particular. [HL1577]

The grant letter from the Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families, and for Innovation, Universities and Skills to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) outlines plans for 118,000 successful apprenticeship completions in England in 2008-09 and 129,000 in 2009-10. The grant letter also specified an overall apprenticeship completion success rate target for 2008-09 of 65 per cent, subject to factoring in the effects of the current economic downturn. In 2007-08 113,000 people completed an apprenticeship in England and completion rates reached an all time high of 64 per cent. The 2007-08 completion rate for apprentices with learning difficulties and/or disabilities was 60 per cent. We will continue to work to improve access to and successful completion of apprenticeships and, going forward, will expect apprenticeship completion rates for people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to be no lower than for non-disabled learners.

The Government are committed to ensuring that people who have learning difficulties or disabilities have full access to apprenticeship learning opportunities and to the specialist support and equipment they may need to complete their apprenticeships successfully. We have put in place support systems, including for the Connexions service to cater for people with learning difficulties and disabilities up to the age of 25, and through duties on the LSC to help young adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities. We also provide extra funds to help make this happen.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what powers are available to the relevant authorities to require landowners to control or reduce populations of Canada geese when they could cause danger to aviation. [HL1560]

Airport operators are required to have appropriate bird control measures in place. Where such measures are required outside of the airport boundary they will have to be implemented with the co-operation of the landowners concerned. Landowners who do not co-operate with the airport operator risk prosecution under Article 73 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 if their lack of co-operation endangers the safety of aircraft using the airport.

Airport operators also have to be consulted during the planning process on all proposed developments in their vicinity. They can oppose any developments which could increase the risk of bird strikes at their airports.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to the report by the British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Combating malnutrition: recommendations for action. [HL1566]

The department has a number of programmes which contribute to the nutritional well-being of the population including particularly vulnerable older people and young children. Nutritional care is integral to our action to tackle health inequalities and in programmes such as Dignity in Care and Healthy Start and is also addressed in Healthy Lives, Brighter Futures—The Strategy for Children and Young People's Health, and Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross-government Strategy for England. The department recognises that ensuring good nutrition is essential in front-line healthcare.

The British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition's recent report will contribute to this work.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total amount of costs paid in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation to the following firms of solicitors representing the claimants: (a) Raleys, (b) Beresfords, (c) Thompsons, (d) Wake Smith, (e) Ashton Morton Slack, (f) Moss, and (g) Avalon. [HL1133]

The total amount paid to those firms representing claimants, as listed above, under the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is shown in the table below as at 22 February 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total amount of costs paid in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation to the following firms of solicitors representing the claimants: (a) Raleys, (b) Beresfords, (c) Thompsons, (d) Wake Smith, (e) Ashton Morton Slack, (f) Moss, and (g) Avalon. [HL1134]

The total amount paid to those firms representing claimants, as listed above, under the vibration white finger scheme is shown in the table below as at 22 February 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to conduct an audit of solicitors' costs in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and British Coal vibration white finger litigation, in the light of the recent decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to strike from the roll of solicitors two former senior partners of Beresfords solicitors LLP. [HL1136]

The department is not planning any such audit for claimants' solicitors' costs under the coal health compensation schemes. Costs for handling claims under the schemes are paid in accordance with the claims handling agreements but the department is not privy to any further arrangement between claimants and their representatives.

However, the department has welcomed the report by the National Audit Office published in July 2007 and the subsequent Public Accounts Committee report examining the coal health compensation schemes. These are available to view at www.nao.org.uk/publications/0607/coal_health_compensation.aspx and www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/350.pdf.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing referred to misconduct between the solicitors and their clients which is a separate issue.

As the legal profession is independent and self-regulating, complaints about solicitor misconduct are a matter for the Legal Complaints Service and Solicitors Regulatory Authority, rather than the Government. However, both DECC and the Ministry of Justice continue to support the Legal Complaints Service in its programme to highlight the issue of deductions from coal health compensation which to date has secured in excess of £3.6 million in refunds to claimants.

Both DECC and the Ministry of Justice have welcomed the recent report by the legal services complaints commissioner on the handling of coal health compensation claims. The report highlighted that overall the LCS had improved the way it handled miners' complaints between February 2008 and 30 June 2008 and had taken note of the 11 issues raised in the LSCC's earlier report of January 2008.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how much in total was paid in costs to the claimants' solicitors in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation. [HL1137]

The total costs for claimants' solicitors’ handling claims under the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme are £1 billion (includes Solicitors Co-ordinating Group, UDM and Vendside Ltd) as at 31 January 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how much in total was paid in costs to the claimants' solicitors in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation. [HL1138]

The total costs for claimants' solicitors’ handling claims under the vibration white finger scheme are £187 million (includes Solicitors Co-ordinating Group, UDM and Vendside Ltd) as at 31 January 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the amount of costs paid to Beresfords Solicitors LLP in (a) the British Coal respiratory disease litigation; (b) the British Coal vibration white finger litigation; and (c) the British Coal industrial deafness litigation. [HL1488]

The amount paid to Beresfords Solicitors for handling claims for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vibration white finger (VWF) and noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is shown in the table below as at 8 February 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the number of claimants in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation awarded compensation of £3,000 or less, broken down between payments of (a) 1p to 50p; (b) 51p to £1, (c) £1.01 to £2; (d) £2.01 to £3; (e) £3.01 to £4; (f) £4.01 to £5; (g) £5.01 to £6; (h) £6.01 to £7; (i) £7.01 to £8; (j) 8.01 to £9; (k) £9.01 to £10; (l) £10.01 to £15; (m) £15.01 to £20; (n) £20.01 to £30; (o) £30.01 to £50; (p) £50.01 to £75; (q) £75.01 to £100; (r) £100.01 to £200; (s) £200.01 to £300; (t) £300.01 to £400; (u) £400.01 to £500; (v) £500.01 to £750; (w) £750.01 to £1,000; (x) £1,000.01 to £1,500; (y) £1,500.01 to £2,000; (z) £2,000 to £3,000; and what is the average sum of costs paid to claimants' solicitors for undertaking each scheme case. [HL1512]

The number of claimants under the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease scheme (COPD) who were awarded compensation of £3,000 or less, broken down by payments as requested above, is shown in the table below as at 8 February 2009.

The average costs paid to the claimants' representatives in COPD claims is £2,242.

To ask Her Majesty's Government to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the number of claimants in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation awarded compensation of £3,000 or less, broken down between payments of (a) 1p to 50p; (b) 51p to £1, (c) £1.01 to £2; (d) £2.01 to £3; (e) £3.01 to £4; (f) £4.01 to £5; (g) £5.01 to £6; (h) £6.01 to £7; (i) £7.01 to £8; (j) 8.01 to £9; (k) £9.01 to £10; (l) £10.01 to £15; (m) £15.01 to £20; (n) £20.01 to £30; (o) £30.01 to £50; (p) £50.01 to £75; (q) £75.01 to £100; (r) £100.01 to £200; (s) £200.01 to £300; (t) £300.01 to £400; (u) £400.01 to £500; (v) £500.01 to £750; (w) £750.01 to £1,000; (x) £1,000.01 to £1,500; (y) £1,500.01 to £2,000; (z) £2,000 to £3,000; and what is the average sum of costs paid to claimants' solicitors for undertaking each scheme case. [HL1513]

The number of claimants under the vibration white finger scheme (VWF) who were awarded compensation of £3,000 or less, broken down by payments as requested above, is shown in the table below as at 8 February 2009.

The average costs paid to the claimants' representatives for VWF claims is £1,402.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average sum in compensation awarded in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation to claimants represented by (a) Beresfords Solicitors LLP; (b) Wake Smith; (c) Ashton Morton Slack LLP; (d) Moss Solicitors LLP; (e) Corries York; (f) Browell Smith; (g) Mark Gilbert Morse; (h) Avalon Solicitors; (i) BRM Solicitors; (j) Atteys; (k) Simpson Millar; (l) Oxley & Coward; (m) The Union of Democratic Mineworkers and its claims company, Vendside Limited; (n) Gorman Hamilton; (o) Delta Legal; (p) TLW Solicitors; and (q) Barber & Co. [HL1514]

The average compensation payment made under the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) scheme to claimants represented as listed above is shown in the table below as at 8 February 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average sum in compensation awarded in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation to claimants represented by (a) Beresfords Solicitors LLP; (b) Wake Smith; (c) Ashton Morton Slack LLP; (d) Moss Solicitors LLP; (e) Corries York; (f) Browell Smith; (g) Mark Gilbert Morse; (h) Avalon Solicitors; (i) BRM Solicitors; (j) Atteys; (k) Simpson Millar; (l) Oxley & Coward; (m) The Union of Democratic Mineworkers and its claims company, Vendside Limited; (n) Gorman Hamilton; (o) Delta Legal; (p) TLW Solicitors; and (q) Barber & Co. [HL1515]

The average compensation payment made under the vibration white finger (VWF) scheme to claimants represented as listed above is shown in the table below as at 8 February 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total amount of deductions made from compensation awarded to claimants in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and paid over to the National Union of Mineworkers by (a) Thompsons Solicitors; (b) Raleys Solicitors; and (c) Graysons Solicitors. [HL1516]

We do not have the information regarding deductions made from compensation as the department is not party to any agreement between claimants and their representatives.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total amount of deductions made from compensation awarded to claimants in the British Coal vibration white finger litigation and paid over to the National Union of Mineworkers by (a) Thompsons Solicitors; (b) Raleys Solicitors; and (c) Graysons Solicitors. [HL1517]

We do not have the information regarding deductions made from compensation as the department is not party to any agreement between claimants and their representatives.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether data on non-fatal carbon monoxide poisoning are centrally collated. [HL1564]

Data on non-fatal cases of carbon monoxide poisoning are not centrally collated.

While data on hospital admissions for treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning are centrally collated, these do not include patients who are not admitted to hospital having been treated by their general practitioner or other staff.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how much was spent on bonuses for members of the civil service in the last financial year; and what is the estimate for the current financial year. [HL1434]

Under the delegated pay arrangements for staff outside the Senior Civil Service (SCS), departments and agencies must have reward systems that include a close and effective link between pay and performance. Detailed information on performance payments is not collected centrally, but data that are held indicate that the cost is approximately 1 per cent of the total pay bill.

For the SCS, performance payments are used to incentivise staff to deliver business objectives successfully. Reward arrangements for the SCS, including the size of the non-consolidated performance pay pot, are based on the recommendations of the independent Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). In 2007-08, 7.6 per cent of the SCS pay bill was available as non-consolidated payments. Only 7.1 per cent of the pay bill was spent in this way, equating to £23.1 million. In his Written Ministerial Statement of 17 June 2008, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister accepted the SSRB's recommendation that 8.6 per cent of the SCS pay bill be made available as non-consolidated payments in 2008-09. These payments have not yet been made.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many civil servants are currently paid in excess of (a) £100,000, and (b) £200,000 per annum. [HL824]

The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply to the noble Lord.

Letter from Dennis Roberts, Director, Surveys and Administrative Sources Directorate, Office for National Statistics, dated January 2009 to Lord Ouseley.

The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many civil servants are currently paid in excess of (a) £100,000 and (b) £200,000 per annum. I am replying in her absence. (HL824.)

The Office for National Statistics collects the annual salaries of civil servants, as part of the Annual Civil Service Employment Survey (ACSES).

At 31 March 2008, there were 700 permanent civil servants earning in excess of £100,000 and 10 permanent civil servants earning in excess of £200,000 (Annex A).

Source: (Unpublished) Annual Civil Service Employment Survey

¹ Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce measures to allow the portability of Criminal Records Bureau enhanced disclosure checks for people moving between similar jobs in the looked- after children sector. [HL1701]

We understand that there is some cost and effort involved in obtaining new CRB disclosures for each new member of staff. However, there are risks associated with porting disclosures. For example, there may have been a new offence committed since the previous disclosure; the disclosure may have been tampered with; or the person's identity may have been checked incorrectly. It is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that their staff are suitable to work with children. Therefore, the employer should satisfy themselves that checks have been completed correctly and that the employer has the full information to make a decision.

The introduction of the vetting and barring scheme from October 2009 will improve safeguarding arrangements. However, we have proposed to continue the requirement for CRB checks as it is important those who employ people who work in the looked-after children's sector have access to the more finely grained criminal history in order to decide on suitability. We will review current statutory requirements for CRB disclosures once the vetting and barring scheme has been fully implemented across the workforce.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their aim that the composition of staff working in the Crown Prosecution Service should be representative of the community it serves. [HL1040]

The Crown Prosecution Service aims to appoint all staff based on merit drawing from the widest talent pools, and in doing so to reflect the community it serves.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the approximate net present value of the debt incurred in respect of public projects paid for by public- private partnership mechanisms and their predecessors. [HL1644]

The full list of all signed private finance initiative (PFI) projects can be found on HM Treasury's website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_pfi_stats.htm. For each PFI project, this list details the project name, the capital value, the constituency, the procuring authority and the annual unitary charge that needs to be paid over the life of the contract.

HM Treasury uses departmental returns as the basis for its statistics on PFI projects published at each Pre-Budget and Budget Report. These are in turn based on HM Treasury's Green Book, which can be found on the Treasury's website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_index.htm and which sets out guidance for the calculation of net present value. HM Treasury does not hold records for all public projects paid for by other public-private partnership mechanisms and their predecessors; these are the responsibility of the relevant procuring authority.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what specific support they will give to the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping's initiative to secure a global emissions trading scheme. [HL1672]

The Government have always stated a preference for a global emissions trading scheme and we are actively pursuing this option in the International Maritime Organisation. We welcome the support from the chamber to achieve this outcome and its framework proposal is a very useful contribution. However, if a consensus cannot be reached on a global approach, we will support a EU maritime emissions trading scheme as a building block towards a global deal and we would welcome the support of the chamber on an EU approach.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Environment Agency has taken the steps necessary to implement the ruling from the Court of Appeal in late 2007 in R (OSS Group Ltd) v Environment Agency that would allow oils used for lubrication to be collected after use and cleaned up into oil suitable for use as a fuel. [HL1033]

Yes. In July 2008 the Environment Agency issued for a 12-week consultation a draft end-of-waste protocol on the production and use of processed fuel oil from waste lubricating oil. The agency is considering the responses to that consultation and hopes shortly to issue a post-consultation draft of the protocol. This version of the protocol will be notified to the European Commission in compliance with the technical standards directive and, subject to the successful conclusion of that process, the protocol will be published by the agency in its final form later in 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how they audit age equality in personnel matters when most departments do not collect and analyse staff age data. [HL1610]

The Civil Service is committed to recruiting and developing people of all ages, an approach that is consistent with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Data on age and other employee characteristics are collected and published through the Office for National Statistics's annual Civil Service employment survey. The survey results include tables that show the age profile across the Civil Service and a breakdown by department; the results of the most recent survey for 2008 can be found on its website at www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk= 2899&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=422.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 29 September 2008 (WA 337-38), what protocols or guidance are in place concerning the taking of minutes in meetings between (a) Ministers and private sector organisations, and (b) civil servants and private sector organisations. [HL724]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether minutes are routinely taken in meetings between civil servants and private sector organisations concerning matters of commercial interest. [HL725]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what records are kept of meetings of (a) Ministers and private sector organisations, and (b) civil servants and private sector organisations. [HL726]

All such meetings are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and Civil Service Code.

Guidance on record-keeping is set out in the Records Management Code and Managing Private Office Records, which can be accessed online at www.national archives.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/code/default. htm and www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/popaper sguidance-full.pdf.

Copies are also available in the Library of the House.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress the Attorney General is making in investigating possible criminal wrongdoing by British and United States security services in the case of Mr Benyam Mohammed Al-Habashi; whether they will publish a report or make an announcement on the matter; and, if so, when. [HL1027]

The Home Secretary referred the question of possible wrongdoing by intelligence and security personnel in the Binyam Mohamed case to me on 23 October 2008. I was provided with the open and closed judgments of the Divisional Court in the case; transcripts of all the evidence given by witness B; the other evidence and submissions made to the court; and the Foreign Secretary's PII (public interest immunity) certificates, together with their sensitive schedules and associated documents.

I have also received material from third parties about the case.

After undertaking a preliminary review of this material I took the view that I should seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. All the material provided to me has been made available to the DPP.

At this stage no decision has been reached and it would be premature to speculate as to the outcome of this consideration.

In performing this function as Attorney-General, I act wholly independently of government and in the public interest. Similarly the DPP acts as an independent prosecuting authority, subject to my statutory superintendence.

You will understand it is not possible to give a precise timescale. There is a substantial quantity of material to consider. Some of it is very highly classified and must be handled under the most secure conditions. It is being considered by specialist prosecutors within the CPS who are progressing this important work as quickly as possible.

I would intend to report to Parliament on my assessment. But you will understand that what can be said publicly at any given stage may depend on a variety of factors, including whether any police investigation is to follow (and the need to avoid prejudicing any such investigation and potential prosecution), and the need to protect national security.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when the Attorney General will report a decision on whether further action will be taken in the case of Binyam Mohamed. [HL1725]

The Home Secretary referred the question of possible wrongdoing by intelligence and security personnel in the Binyam Mohamed case to me on 23 October 2008. I was provided with the open and closed judgments of the Divisional Court in the case; transcripts of all the evidence given by witness B; the other evidence and submissions made to the court; and the Foreign Secretary's PII (public interest immunity) certificates, together with their sensitive schedules and associated documents.

I have also received material from third parties about the case.

After undertaking a preliminary review of this material I took the view that I should seek advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. All the material provided to me has been made available to the DPP.

At this stage no decision has been reached and it would be premature to speculate as to the outcome of this consideration.

In performing this function as Attorney-General, I act wholly independently of government and in the public interest. Similarly the DPP acts as an independent prosecuting authority, subject to my statutory superintendence.

You ask when I will report a decision on when further action will be taken. You will understand it is not possible to give a precise timescale. There is a substantial quantity of material to consider. Some of it is very highly classified and must be handled under the most secure conditions. It is being considered by specialist prosecutors within the CPS who are progressing this important work as quickly as possible.

I would intend to report to Parliament on my assessment. But you will understand that what can be said publicly at any given stage may depend on a variety of factors, including whether any police investigation is to follow (and the need to avoid prejudicing any such investigation and potential prosecution), and the need to protect national security.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total number of prescribing and dispensing errors involving immunosuppressant therapies Prograf and Advagraf by (a) prescribing clinicians, and (b) dispensing healthcare professionals. [HL1662]

The National Patient Safety Agency has advised that 19 patient safety incidents relating to prescribing and dispensing of immunosuppressant therapies Prograf and Advagraf were submitted to its reporting and learning system between 1 January 2005 and 30 November 2008.

These include nine prescribing incidents. Five of these related to omitted or delayed doses of Prograf or Advagraf in hospital settings, one to a poorly hand- written prescription, two where the wrong formulation of tacrolimus (the active ingredient in these therapies) had been prescribed and one to a possible interaction between an oral antibiotic and Prograf.

The remaining 10 were dispensing incidents. In four of these, the wrong formulation of tacrolimus had been dispensed. Two incidents related to omitted or delayed doses of Prograf or Advagraf in hospital settings, two where there was an unclear or wrong dose, one incident involving expired stock and one incident where the wrong quantity of capsules had been dispensed.

All 19 incidents resulted in low or no harm.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the financial situation of rural households which, because they have no access to a gas supply, have to pay large sums of money for bulk deliveries of oil; and what action they will take to address this issue. [HL1349]

The most recently published fuel poverty figures show that in 2006 around 2.7 million households in England were not connected to the mains gas network, with around 20 per cent of them estimated to be in fuel poverty. Around 900,000 households rely on heating oil as their main fuel for central heating and just under a quarter of these were fuel poor in 2006.

Warm Front is the Government's flagship scheme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England for vulnerable householders. The scheme currently provides grants for specified insulation and heating measures up to the value of £2,700_. or £4,000 for oil central heating (including properties with no access to the gas network).

The Government recognise the specific challenge of assisting properties in rural communities. The Warm Front Scheme Management Board considers on a regular basis whether to approve appropriate alternative technologies on to the scheme, where they might prove cost-effective. One example is through Warm Front and National Energy Action where we are currently carrying out a pilot using solar thermal technology together with electric heating.

In addition, Warm Front has a networking team which operates in rural areas to help bring assistance to vulnerable households in rural communities. Proactively engaging with local organisations and area-based schemes, the team helps to increase the take-up of grants and energy efficiency advice in rural areas.

The carbon emissions reduction target (CERT) is the Government's principal policy for driving up household energy efficiency by 2011. Under CERT the major energy suppliers have an obligation to direct at least 40 per cent of carbon savings at priority group households. This includes important measures for hard-to-treat homes such as solid wall insulation and central heating. Suppliers installed around 80,000 heating measures through fuel switching in the previous three-year obligation period to March 2008 (the second energy efficiency commitment, EEC2). The Government recognise there is a high up-front cost for these measures and therefore under CERT we have introduced specific incentives to help improve the financial viability of fuel switching, with a particular focus on homes which are off the gas grid.

The principal barrier to providing new gas connections to communities and households beyond the mains gas network is the cost to the customer. Ofgem recognises the benefits that access to gas offers low-income households, and has incentivised the large gas networks to connect deprived communities under the 2008-13 gas distribution price control. This packages a range of existing funding sources and uses independent gas transporters with an aim of ensuring the maximum number of vulnerable and fuel poor households should be connected to the gas network at least cost. Those households who will be assisted under the scheme qualify because they reside within the 20 per cent most deprived areas according to the index of multiple deprivation, qualify for assistance under Warm Front (or similar schemes in the devolved nations) or fall within the priority group under CERT.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 28 January (WA 59), whether the options presented to the United Kingdom and other member nations of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in the non-paper “Chairs' suggestions on the Future of the IWC” on 2 February were produced in consultation with civil society representatives to allow input, comment and review prior to their distribution. [HL1630]

No, these suggestions were produced by the chairs of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the so-called Small Working Group (SWG) on their own initiative. Under the terms of the process agreed by the IWC for considering its future, the meetings and proceedings of the SWG and its subgroups are confidential, and not open to representatives of civil society. Civil society will, however, have an opportunity to comment and question the chairs' suggestions at the intersessional meeting of the IWC which will take place in Rome from 9 to 11 March.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any of the options presented for consideration to the United Kingdom and other member nations of the International Whaling Commission on 2 February would (a) legalise Japan's catches for up to five years in the Southern Ocean sanctuary; (b) legalise Japan's catches of coastal minke whales; and (c) legalise commercial hunting by Japan of minke whales, Bryde's whales, sei whales or sperm whales in the North Pacific Ocean. [HL1631]

Under the terms of Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, Japan's lethal research takes of minke whales in the Southern Ocean and of minke, Bryde's, sei and sperm whales in the North Pacific are, regrettably, quite legal. Any decision by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to set quotas for North Pacific whale species (whether for highly localised use by the people of coastal communities in Japan who have a tradition of whaling, or for wider commercial use) would require to be framed as amendments to the schedule to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, and could be brought into force only by a three-quarter majority vote of those present and voting at a recognised meeting of the IWC. The intersessional IWC meeting which will take place in Rome from 9 to 11 March has no power to make such decisions.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the “Chairs' suggestions on the Future of the International Whaling Commission” paper proposes a solution that will end the large-scale unilateral catches currently issued under Special Permits by Japan or other countries such as Iceland. [HL1632]

The right of any contracting Government to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to issue special permits and to conduct lethal research whaling is enshrined in Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The chairs' suggestions do not include any proposal to amend Article VIII. The extent to which current so-called scientific whaling may or may not be curtailed as a result of pursuing any of the options advanced in the chairs' paper will depend on the willingness of those Governments currently pursuing such operations to scale them back voluntarily, in exchange for other possible concessions. There would be no legal recourse for the IWC if such voluntary action were ever discontinued.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the “Chairs' suggestions on the Future of the International Whaling Commission” paper contains a proposal that would require Japan to cease importing whale products from other countries including Iceland or Norway or from any other nation that issues special permits for its nationals to catch great whales. [HL1633]

No. Trade matters are within the competence of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and outside that of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Rome in March and the annual IWC meeting in Madeira in June the United Kingdom will oppose and vote against any options that defer resolution of urgent issues. [HL1634]

At the intersessional meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Rome in March, the UK delegation will seek to explore whether any of the options suggested by the chairs in their paper could possibly be viable, viability being considered against the requirements that they are achievable and would guarantee in the long term a significant reduction in the number of whales hunted and killed. At the annual meeting in Madeira, the UK would not support the adoption of any measure which it considered prejudicial to the conservation of whales.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Rome in March and the annual IWC meeting in Madeira in June the United Kingdom will vote against options contained in the “Chairs' suggestions on the Future of the International Whaling Commission” paper that would legalise catches of whales either in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary or in the North Pacific Ocean to ensure such options are not agreed either by consensus or through an abstention by the United Kingdom. [HL1635]

Save through an amendment to Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (which would probably require the convening of a formal diplomatic conference to adopt it and subsequent ratification by all parties to bring it into effect), the International Whaling Commission has no power to alter the legal status of whaling under special permit. The UK could agree to the legalisation of other forms of whaling only if it was convinced that by doing so it would bring about a significant improvement of whale conservation in the long term.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge other European Union nations that are members of the International Whaling Commission to oppose and vote against any of the options that would legalise whale catchers in the Southern Ocean sanctuary or the North Pacific Ocean that were included in the non-paper Chairs' suggestions on the Future of the IWC presented to the United Kingdom and other member nations of the Commission on 2 February. [HL1660]

The options included in the chairs' suggestions on the future of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) are not sufficiently clear to enable a definitive evaluation of them to be made. At the intersessional meeting of the IWC, the UK will seek to probe their meaning and determine whether there is any likelihood that they could subsequently be framed as amendments to the schedule to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling which could command support. In so far as options are worked up into amendments (which will not be up for consideration until the annual meeting of the IWC in June), the UK will certainly urge those EU member states which are also members of the IWC to oppose and vote against any measures, the adoption of which would not guarantee a significant improvement in the conservation status of whales in the long term.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the relative standards of cleanliness at work for hospital kitchen staff and for hospital nurses. [HL1642]

Standards of cleanliness in the National Health Service are measured against The National Specifications for Cleanliness in the NHS: A Framework for Setting and Measuring Performance Outcomes, first published in 2001 (a copy of which has already been placed in the Library) and the Patient Environment Action Team (PEAT) annual inspection programme introduced in 2000. This latter programme includes an assessment of ward kitchens. The Healthcare Commission monitors cleanliness by means of its national in-patient surveys and annual health check. It also carries out specialist inspections against the Health Act 2006 code of practice which include an assessment of cleanliness. By all these measures, hospital cleanliness has improved in every year since measurements began in 2000.

No specific assessment has been made of the relative standards of cleanliness as detailed in the question. Production kitchens will be the subject of separate requirements under local environmental provisions.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to revise the Health Technical Memorandum 01–04 “The Management of Used and Infected Linen in the Healthcare Sector”. [HL1638]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions they have had with industry representatives on the revision of Health Technical Memorandum 01–04 “The Management of Infected Linen in the Healthcare Sector”. [HL1639]

To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the revised Health Technical Memorandum 01–04 “The Management of Infected and Used Linen in the Healthcare Sector”. [HL1640]

The document Health Technical Memorandum (HTM) 01-04 The Management of Used and Infected Linen in the Healthcare Sector does not currently exist and therefore there is no revision taking place. The current guidance associated with this area is HSG (95) 18—Hospital Laundry Arrangements for Used and Infected Linen.

The department is currently producing HTM 01-04: Decontamination of Laundry and Infected Linen (working title) as part of the suite of HTM documents that provide guidance on decontamination in the healthcare sector. HTM 01-04 is intended to provide a replacement for HSG (95) 18—Hospital Laundry Arrangements for Used and Infected Linen and provide a more complete guidance package on uniform and laundry decontamination to assist with the reduction of risks associated with healthcare-associated infections.

HTM 01-04 is being produced with the assistance of a wide cross-section of stakeholders who have been engaged in a formal steering group with departmental officials and the technical authors for the document.

The steering group is actively involved in contributing evidence and in the review of the draft guidance material. The steering group membership includes a broad range of industry representatives including, among others, the Textile Services Association and Sunlight Services Group as representatives of industry.

The approach and structure used within this guidance has been changed following consultation with the steering group members. The changes are intended to ensure that the guidance is equally usable and useful for both large and small laundry service providers. Improvements have also been made to aspects of the guidance concerned with laundry sorting and management at hospital ward level.

The department has commissioned additional research on the removal of Clostridium difficile spores from laundry. The results of this research will, if necessary, shape aspects of the guidance.

Department practice requires that the draft guidance be subject to peer review before final publication can take place. The department intends to publish HTM 01-04, subject to a successful peer review, during the autumn of 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect changing facilities for nurses to be mandatory in all NHS hospitals. [HL1641]

It is the responsibility of each National Health Service trust to develop and maintain its own policies in relation to the provision of changing facilities for staff. A trust's chief executive has the responsibility for ensuring that nurses have enough suitable clothing and equipment to carry out their work effectively and to make any other supporting arrangements that may be necessary.

In order to support and advise trusts in the review and maintenance of such local policies, the department's Working Group on Uniforms and Laundry put together an evidence base on the wearing and laundering of uniforms outlining the existing legal requirements and current research findings. This document, Uniforms and Workwear: Evidence Base for Developing Local Policy, was published in September 2007 and a copy has already been placed in the Library. Copies can also be obtained via the department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH078433.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many petitions the Department for Transport received in (a) 2007 and (b) 2008; what steps the department has taken to publicise them; and whether they will place the text of the petitions received and the number of signatures in the Library of the House. [HL1646]

The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what procedures the Department for Transport has for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions received from members of the public. [HL1647]

All petitions are received by the department's staff and brought to the attention of the responsible Minister. There is no formal process to respond to petitions.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the information contained in table 4 (appointments to the boards of public bodies) of Public Bodies 2008, published by the Cabinet Office, in relation to executive non-departmental public bodies only. [HL1214]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total number of female appointees to non-departmental public bodies, and their percentage of total appointees, for each of the past 10 years (a) including, and (b) excluding, Ministry of Justice non-departmental public bodies. [HL1215]

This information is not held centrally. The annual public bodies report provides information on the number of women serving on the boards of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), NHS bodies and national public corporations. This information is broken down by department. The Commissioner for Public Appointments's annual report provides information on the total number of women appointed and reappointed to the boards of executive NDPBs during the financial year. Copies of Public Bodies and of the commissioner's annual reports are available from the Libraries of the House. A copy of the commissioner's latest annual report is available from her website at www.publicappointments commissioner.org.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the constraints which have prevented them from giving replies to the Written Questions tabled by Lord Corbett of Castle Vale on 3 December (HL 38) and by Lord Hylton on 8 December (HL 145). [HL1402]

A response was sent to Lord Corbett of Castle Vale on 3 March 2009 (Official Report, col. WA 141) by my right honourable friend Baroness Taylor of Bolton, and to Lord Hylton on 11 February 2009 (Official Report, col. WA 196) by my right honourable friend Lord Davies of Oldham.

To ask Her Majesty's Government in relation to the reinstatement of Todmorden Curve and following their statement in the Pennine Lancashire multi-area agreement (MAA) that “DfT will work with Pennine Lancashire MAA, Northern and Network Rail to facilitate the introduction of a new service in the period 2009–2014 (CP4) for which funding would need to be sourced by local authorities”, (a) what actions they have taken and will take to support and progress this proposal; (b) to which local authorities it refers, and (c) whether any of those local authorities are outside the Pennine Lancashire area which would be served by such a new service. [HL1820]

Department for Transport officials have had a meeting with Blackburn with Darwen Council, Lancashire County Council, Burnley Borough Council and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) to explain the process for taking the project forward. A further meeting is to take place in mid-March, along with Network Rail, and officials will attend future meetings as necessary when requested by the promoters.

It would be for Lancashire County Council and Burnley Borough Council to act as promoters for this project as a new service would primarily benefit their area.

The new service would run to Manchester via Rochdale and these places are within the GMPTE area, but outside the Pennine Lancashire area.