To ask the Leader of the House what guidance her Office follows on the maximum time taken to respond to hon. Members' correspondence; and what performance against that target was in the most recent period for which figures are available. (158589)

The Leader of the House of Commons' Office aims to respond to hon. Members' correspondence within 15 working days. During August 2007 this was achieved for 91 per cent. of MPs' and Peers' correspondence received. For the year 2006, the target was achieved for 95 per cent. of MPs' correspondence and 97 peers of Peers' correspondence.

To ask the Leader of the House how many websites her Department operates; how many it operated at 1 January 2005; and what the estimated annual cost has been of running her Department's websites in the last five years. (157905)

The Leader of the House of Commons Office operate one website and has done so since June 2003. From April 2006 until March 2007 the annual cost of running the website was £7,050. From April 2007 until October 2007 the cost has been £4,112,50. Following a Machinery of Government change, information prior to 2006-07 financial year is available only at disproportionate cost.

To ask the Leader of the House how many hits the (a) most popular and (b) least popular website run by her Department has received since 1 January 2007. (157906)

The Leader of the House of Commons Office website has received a total of 6,894,877 hits since 1 January 2007.

To ask the Leader of the House how many fixed penalty tickets were incurred by vehicles within the purview of her Department in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost was. (157903)

Following a machinery of government change, detailed information on expenditure incurred in the 2006-07 financial year is available only at disproportionate cost.

To ask the Leader of the House how many staff are seconded to her Department from outside Government; from which outside body each has been seconded; and what the length is of each secondment. (157904)

There are currently 20 members of staff who are seconded to the Cabinet Office from outside of Government. This figure includes five members of staff from the Houses of Parliament. The Houses of Parliament do not form part of the civil service. The following table lists (a) the outside body from which each has been seconded from and (b) length of each secondment:

To ask the Leader of the House how many and what percentage of questions tabled for answer on a named day received a substantive answer on the day due in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by answering Department. (158051)

Individual Departments are responsible for keeping their own records on the timeliness of answers and providing this information to the House when requested by the Public Administration Committee or through Members' questions. To provide this information centrally could be done only at disproportionate cost.

The last available figures of the Leader of the House of Commons Office relate to the 2005-06 session. These show that 100 per cent. of the 71 named day questions tabled were answered on the date specified.

To ask the Leader of the House how many (a) debates and (b) votes there have been on the subject of hon. Members' pensions since 1997. (157367)

The following debates and votes relating to Members’ pensions have been identified by the Journal Office as having taken place on the Floor of the House since 1997:

5 July 2001 (implementation of the elements of the 2001 SSRB report relating to MPs' pensions):

Motion on Parliamentary Pensions (divisions on amendments moved by hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)).

3 November 2004 (implementation of the elements of the 2004 SSRB report relating to MPs' pensions):

(1) Motion on Parliamentary Pensions (Contribution Rate);

(2) Motion on Parliamentary Pensions (Survivor Benefits and Early Retirement).

In addition, there was a debate in a delegated legislation Committee on 23 July 2002 on the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No 1807) (followed by a division).

To ask the Leader of the House if she will bring forward proposals to improve scrutiny of European Union legislation. (157578)

I refer the hon. Lady to my answer during oral questions on 8 October 2007, Official Report, column 19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations she has received on upgrading the A12 in Essex to motorway standard; and if she will make a statement. (158421)

The Secretary of State is not aware of any recent representations for upgrading the A12 to motorway standard. Following the recommendations of the M25 to Ipswich multi-modal study in 2002, the Secretary of State asked the Highways Agency to carry out further appraisal for upgrading the A12 between the M25 and Colchester.

In July 2006 the Secretary of State accepted the advice of the East of England’s Regional Assembly on regional transport investment priorities, not to prioritise the A12 for funding in the period up to 2015-16. It will be for the Region to reconsider in the review of the Regional Funding Allocations due in 2008.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will estimate the cost of upgrading the A12 in Essex to motorway standard. (158422)

The A12 all purpose trunk road in Essex is a mixture of dual two and three lane carriageways of varying standard. There are no proposals to upgrade the A12 to motorway standard and consequently no assessment work has been undertaken. Hence no costs for upgrading the A12 to motorway standard are available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what Government research has been undertaken into the independent mobility needs of (a) people with mental health problems, (b) partially sighted people, (c) people with severe learning and/or behavioural difficulties and (d) people with severe autism to determine their eligibility for a Blue Badge; (158032)

Research into the mobility needs of certain disability groups who may not be eligible for the Blue Badge under the current eligibility criteria, was completed earlier this year. This included people with severe autism, mental health difficulties, learning and/or behavioural difficulties and people who are partially sighted. The findings were considered as part of the strategic review of the scheme, which reported to me in September and will contribute to the publication of a comprehensive Blue Badge reform strategy by April 2008.

All English authorities will be issued with revised guidance later this year. As responsibility for the scheme is devolved in the UK, the Administrations for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are producing their own guidance separately.

Following changes I announced recently, children under the age of two, who are dependent upon bulky medical equipment, have been eligible for a badge under the scheme from 15 October 2007.

The Department for Transport recognises the need to promote greater consistency of assessment. This is a key theme which is being addressed through our strategic review and forthcoming Blue Badge reform strategy. The revised local authority guidance, due for publication later this year, will also help to clarify the assessed eligibility process.

The medical assessment practice varies between different local authorities. We are committed to actively promoting good practice guidance in this area and are engaging with the Department of Health on this issue.

From 15 October 2007, certain badges are now linked to the receipt and issue period of both the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance and war pensioners’ mobility supplement.

Research into the feasibility of a national database was completed earlier this year. The findings were considered as part of the strategic review of the scheme, which will contribute to the publication of a comprehensive Blue Badge reform strategy by April 2008.

All local authorities have a duty to comply with the Data Protection Act 1988. The revised local authority guidance, due for publication later this year, will provide additional advice on this area and a model data protection statement for Blue Badge applicants to complete.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation covers the regulation of car hire companies; and when the last review of these provisions was undertaken. (154747)

The Department for Transport is not aware of any legislation relating specifically to the regulation of car hire companies.

However, the Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2005 [SI 2005/3190], which came into force on 4 December 2006, do cover “hire vehicles” (the definition of which is relevant to vehicles hired out by car hire companies).

The 2005 regulations effectively disapplied certain exemptions contained in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of particular types of vehicle, including “hire vehicles”. As a result, car hire companies (like other vehicle-hire firms covered by the 2005 regulations) can no longer discriminate against disabled persons when providing vehicles.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fixed penalty tickets were incurred by vehicles within the purview of her Department in the last year for which figures are available; and what the total cost was. (157919)

The Department for Transport and its agencies maintain the policy that road traffic violations such as parking tickets and speeding fines remain the responsibility of the individual, and are not reimbursed from public resources. Three of the Department’s agencies record penalties incurred by their drivers on official business, and these amounted to a total of 17 in financial year 2006-07. No financial cost was incurred by the Department.

The exception to this is the Government Car and Despatch Agency which pays parking fines incurred operationally in circumstances where the overriding security requirements of high profile passengers or secure or sensitive documents necessarily dictate the choice of parking location. 73 such fines were paid in financial year 2006-07, at a total cost of £5,898.02.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what her most recent estimate is of the debts left to the public sector following Metronet’s failure to fulfil its contract with London Underground; and how she expects those debts to be met. (157848)

It is for Metronet’s Administrators, working with Transport for London and London Underground, to identify the best route out of Administration. In advance of their conclusions, it continues to be inappropriate to speculate on any public sector financial impacts and, therefore, how such impacts would be handled.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment she has made of the performance of First Capital Connect services between Peterborough and London over the last five years. (158961)

Since the commencement of the First Capital Connect (FCC) franchise on 1 April 2006, the Public Performance Measure (PPM) Moving Annual Average for the Great Northern route, which includes services between Peterborough and London, has increased from 89.56 per cent. to 92.35 per cent. in the most recent complete operating period. FCC recently achieved a period PPM of 96.09 per cent. on the GN route, which is the highest achieved since franchising in the 1990s.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail passengers travelled on railway lines in Wales in each year since 1992; and if she will make a statement. (158971)

The Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for the services provided within Wales and across the border by Arriva Trains Wales. Details of the number of passengers who have travelled on railway lines in Wales each year since 1992 are not held by the Department for Transport.

Statistics on numbers of passengers on the railway network are published by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) in the National Rail Trends Yearbook editions, which are available in the House Library or from their website: www.rail-reg.gov.uk.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway carriages were used on railway lines in Wales in each year since 1992; how many seats were provided in those carriages in each of those years; and if she will make a statement. (158972)

The Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for the services provided within Wales and across the border by Arriva Trains Wales. Details of the number of carriages that were used on railway lines in Wales in each year since 1992 and the number of seats provided in those carriages are not held by the Department.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which local authorities have submitted bids for funding from the congestion element of the Transport Innovation Fund in each year since its creation; and which were (a) accepted and (b) rejected; (158106)

Money from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) will become available from 2008-09. Ten areas have been awarded pump-priming funding to support the development of Transport Innovation Fund packages that address local congestion problems combining demand management, including road pricing, with better public transport. So far one substantive TIF bid for funding has been received. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) have submitted a business case for Transport Innovation Fund funding for a package to tackle congestion by combining transport investment and road pricing. Details are available on http://www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk/. We are currently assessing the case.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic (a) accidents and (b) fatalities there were on the A14 in Suffolk in each year since 1997; and how many involved drivers under the age of 21 years in each case. (159209)

The information requested is given in the following tables.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions control whether hackney carriages outside London may collect customers after being hailed off the street, outside a taxi rank. (158108)

The law allows the drivers of licensed hackney carriages to accept immediate hirings from passengers either when the cabs are standing at a rank or in response to a hailing in the street. The drivers are, however, only permitted to accept such hirings while located in the area for which they are licensed. If a driver drops off a passenger outside his own licensing area he cannot respond to a street hailing (or stand at a rank) until he returns to his own licensing area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what her most recent estimate is of the number of uninsured vehicles in the Greater London area. (159008)

Our latest estimate for the United Kingdom is that in 2005 there were about 2.1 million licensed vehicles being driven uninsured (about 6.5 per cent. of the UK vehicle fleet). Information is not held by area.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which beneficiaries of the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund received more than £50,000 in any one year in each year since the inception of the levy. (158548)

DEFRA’s Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund database contains details of overall amounts paid out to projects from April 2004 onwards, but we do not have annual payments recorded centrally. I have arranged for a list of beneficiaries that have received over £50,000 from the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, since April 2004, to be placed in the Library of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consideration he has given to applying for EU emergency funds under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to compensate farmers for flood damage to crops and livestock. (154039)

Articles 87 and 88 of the European Community Treaty do not provide access to European Union (EU) emergency funds. The categories (which also include the guidelines and regulations that have since been formulated on this issue) relate to aid, funded by individual member states rather than the EU, that we are allowed to pay in certain circumstances (state aid).

The UK has submitted an application to the EU Solidarity Fund in the wake of this summer’s flooding. However, the purpose of the fund is to assist member state Governments with costs that arise from the relief efforts and those of returning infrastructure to the condition it was in before the disaster occurred. It is unlikely that compensation to private business, including farmers, for losses arising from the floods would be eligible. As part of the application process, the Government will agree with the Commission how any support received from the Solidarity Fund will be used.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the release of the report on the progress of the transition towards the ban on battery cages for egg production due to come into effect in 2012; (157719)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn) recently met with Commissioner Kyprianou and stressed the urgency of publishing the Commission’s report. The report will consider the various systems for keeping laying hens, their health and environmental impact, socio-economic implications and effects on the Community’s economic partners.

A regulatory impact assessment was produced in 2002 when Council Directive 99/74/EC was transposed into domestic legislation. This will be updated in the light of the Commission’s report and will consider such aspects as the impact of the 2012 conventional cage ban on the industry and trading patterns. Currently, over half of UK egg production is from caged birds although, during the last few years, there has been a shift in production methods in the UK from conventional cages to enriched cages and alternative systems.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the report Badgers and Cattle TB: Final Report of the Independent Scientific Group was peer reviewed; who peer reviewed it; what feedback was received from the peer review; and if he will make a statement. (157271)

The Independent Scientific Group’s (ISG) Final Report as whole has not been peer-reviewed. However, most of the work has been published in leading, independently peer-reviewed scientific journals. Appendix J of the Report (available on the DEFRA website and in the Libraries of the House) summarises their published scientific papers and other important published material.

Formal independent audits of core aspects of the trial were undertaken at appropriate intervals. These included the field procedures of surveying, social group delineation and badger removal, welfare aspects of the way trapped badgers were dispatched, post-mortem protocols and bacteriological culture procedures, as well as procedures for data collection, handling and statistical analysis. Appendix E of the Report lists the programme of audits undertaken throughout the trial.

The ISG webpage, which lists their publications, can be found at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/isgpublications.htm

and reports of the independent audits that have been carried out can be found at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/culling/p5aud.htm.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he has commissioned research on the carbon footprint of those on low incomes compared to those on high incomes. (158538)

As part of its pre-feasibility study into personal carbon trading, the Government will be looking at, among other things, carbon footprints of different groups to assess the equity impact of personal carbon trading.

This will follow initial work conducted by the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) in November 2006, entitled “A Rough Guide to Individual Carbon Trading”. One of the findings of this report was that, in general, those on lower incomes tend to emit less carbon dioxide than average, while those on higher incomes tend to emit more carbon dioxide than average. A personal carbon trading system might have the potential to achieve emissions savings in a fairer way than a carbon tax.

A recent piece of work by the CSE, commissioned by DEFRA to help inform development of the post-2011 supplier obligation, further illustrates the correlation between income level and carbon emissions. This study also draws out important variations within income bands, showing that some low-income households have very high consumption levels and some high-income households have very low consumption levels.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make it his policy that (a) any carbon budget he sets out for 2008 to 2012 will require a lower level of emissions in that period than in the preceding five years and (b) that every future budget period will be set at a level lower than its predecessor. (158343)

As set out in the draft Climate Change Bill, the independent Committee on Climate Change will advise the Government on the emissions reduction pathway to achieve the 2020 and 2050 targets. The Committee will advise specifically on the level of carbon budgets, taking into account where carbon savings can be achieved across the economy and the optimum balance between domestic action and international trading in carbon allowances.

Its first task will be to advise the Government on the first three five-year carbon budgets by 1 September 2008.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the merits of natural peatlands as net absorbers of carbon dioxide; and what measures are in place to protect peatlands to combat greenhouse gas emissions. (157979)

Peatlands are a significant store of carbon in the UK and require protection. A substantial proportion of these are found in Scotland. However, in terms of absorbing carbon dioxide, the potential is limited, due to their slow growth.

DEFRA is currently seeking to develop its understanding of the risks to this carbon store and to investigate the best means of protecting peatlands and the biodiversity they support. The Department is in the process of setting up a cross-governmental project that is intended to form part of DEFRA's new soil strategy for England. This will ensure that DEFRA and its agencies co-ordinate their activity on peat soils and liaise effectively with the devolved Administrations as well as identifying best practice for protecting peatlands and putting in place the appropriate measures.

However, to a large extent, land managers are already protecting peatlands for their biodiversity value under agri-environment schemes and Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Around 230,000 hectares of peatlands are currently managed under agri-environment agreements in England.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a cattle vaccine for (a) foot and mouth disease, (b) blue tongue and (c) bovine TB. (157365)

A large number of foot and mouth vaccines for a range of different strains are already held in the UK vaccine bank at the Merial production facility in Pirbright This is the only facility licensed to produce foot and mouth disease vaccines in the UK. As soon as we identified the precise strain of the circulating virus we ordered 300,000 doses to be made ready for use. This vaccine is licensed for use in cattle and other species and the production was cleared by the Health and Safety Executive and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

However, DEFRA has decided not to vaccinate at this time as the epidemiological evidence concludes that the risk of the infection spreading out of Surrey is very low. Therefore, the slaughter of animals on infected premises and dangerous contacts remains the most effective way of eradicating the disease.

There is currently no suitable vaccine for the bluetongue serotype 8 available; as this serotype only emerged in Europe last year. However, we are aware of several companies who are developing such a vaccine for use in cattle and sheep and we are in urgent discussions with them to do what we can to encourage this work. We are also developing a plan with the industry as to how a vaccination campaign would work once a vaccine becomes available, is licensed, safe and effective for use; we hope this will be next year.

While progress is being made on the development of a TB vaccine for cattle, vaccination as a practical TB control measure is still some way off. DEFRA-funded research has successfully identified lead candidate vaccines and we are now starting to look at delivery protocols. Research is also continuing on tests to differentiate infected from vaccinated animals (DIVA tests). It is important to note that development of a successful TB vaccine cannot be guaranteed, and that if a vaccine can be developed it will only form one part of a balanced package of measures to control the disease.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions he has had with Ministry of Defence Ministers or officials on restrictions on civilian leisure activities on Ministry of Defence land as a result of foot and mouth disease. (157071)

DEFRA is in regular contact with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and, during the recent foot and mouth outbreaks, we have had a range of discussions. During the initial outbreaks, DEFRA was in daily contact with the MoD to clarify public access arrangements and countryside activities in high risk areas.

During the initial outbreaks in August, at the request of DEFRA, officials from Defence Estates, the relevant MoD organisation, assisted Surrey county council in closing MoD public land within the protection zone.

In line with DEFRA guidelines, MoD has not imposed any public access or leisure restrictions on their land in low risk areas during the recent outbreaks.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency preparations his Department made for the possibility of a general election in autumn 2007; and what the costs were of those preparations. (157002)

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 15 October 2007, Official Report column 823W.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme has produced or commissioned on the use of radio frequency identification chips in rubbish bins. (158220)

I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 21 June 2007, Official Report, column 2097W.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the level of public satisfaction with local authority waste collection services in areas with (a) alternate weekly collections and (b) weekly collections. (155700)

DEFRA does not carry out its own monitoring of satisfaction with waste services. It is the responsibility of local authorities to do this at. At present, they are required under the local government performance framework to carry out a survey every three years as part of the best value performance indicators. Further information about these indicators is available from the local government performance website at:

www.bvpi.gov.uk

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what guidance (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme has given to local authorities on the size of wheelie bins for household rubbish collection; (158096)

The Department has not given any guidance on this issue.

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) issued guidance on alternate weekly collection (“Alternate Weekly Collections: Guidance for Local Authorities”) which has a short section on the size of wheelie bins. WRAP has issued no other guidance on this issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2007, Official Report, columns 156-7W on domestic wastes: waste disposal, to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), what estimate has been made of the proportion of household rubbish collected for recycling that is not recycled in local authorities which do not have material recycling facilities. (158138)

No specific assessment has been made by my Department on the proportion of household rubbish collected for recycling not recycled in local authorities which do not have material recycling facilities.

The challenging recycling and composting targets set for all local authorities in England mean that it is in the authority’s interest to recycle or compost as much of the viable material collected. Local authorities without local facilities may either use facilities in other areas, or send recyclables for reprocessing outside the UK.

When reporting data to WasteDataFlow, local authorities should specify the amount of waste collected for recycling that is subsequently rejected at the point of collection, at a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), or at the gate of the reprocessor. The data reported to WasteDataFlow are used by the Environment Agency and DEFRA to monitor the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research, advice or guidance the consultancy Eunomia has produced at public expense on levying charges on households for providing containers which will hold domestic rubbish. (158247)

Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd. have conducted research for DEFRA through the project “Modelling the Impact of Household Charging for Waste in England”. This report contains a literature review and modelling work, which includes sack-based schemes and bin volume schemes. Both of these involve charging households for containers which will hold domestic rubbish.

They have not provided any policy advice or guidance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice or guidance (a) the Waste and Resources Action Programme and (b) his Department has provided to councils on levying charges on households for providing containers which will hold domestic rubbish. (158248)

No advice or guidance have been provided by the Waste and Resources Action Programme or DEFRA on these issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether, under his Department’s proposals to allow local authorities to charge for the collection of household waste, waste collection authorities will remain under an obligation to collect rubbish from households which did not pay the charges. (158403)

DEFRA is considering responses to a recent consultation on the issue of whether local authorities should be given a new legal power to introduce non income-raising (‘revenue neutral’) incentive schemes for minimising waste. This would be a power not a duty, and the aim of any such scheme would be to incentivise behavioural change. This would not be a charging scheme for the collection of waste, as any payments required would be aimed at influencing behaviour change and not on the cost of the collection service.

The duty of waste collection authorities, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to collect household waste (subject to certain exemptions) would not be altered by the Department’s proposals.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the insurance industry on the provision of (a) adequate flood defences by the Government and (b) insurance cover in areas vulnerable to flooding; and if he will make a statement. (159097)

Ministerial colleagues, officials and I are in regular contact with the insurance industry and the Association of British Insurers. We are working together with the mutual aim of ensuring continued widespread availability of flood insurance cover through the Association’s Statement of Principles. This sets out commitments by insurers on the availability of flood insurance, associated with commitments by the Government on effective management of flood risk.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Environment Agency’s definition is of the probability of (a) low, (b) medium and (c) high flood risk in terms of the frequency in years at which an area is likely to flood. (158411)

The Environment Agency uses three categories for defining the probability of a flood. They are low, moderate and significant.

Low—the chance of flooding each year is 0.5 per cent. (1 in 200) or less.

Moderate—the chance of flooding in any year is 1.3 per cent. (1 in 75) or less but greater than 0.5 per cent. (1 in 200).

Significant—the chance of flooding in any year is greater than 1.3 per cent. (1 in 75).

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme has given to local authorities on food waste collection, including which types of food can and cannot be placed in food waste buckets. (158216)

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) offers advice to local authorities on arrangements for food waste collection. This advice has been developed on the basis of published literature, a number of projects commissioned by WRAP and current local authority experience of providing food waste collection services. The general advice is that if local authorities are considering collecting food waste they should consider collecting it separately and on a weekly basis. Where food waste is collected separately, WRAP advises that local authorities provide appropriate containers to householders (typically a kitchen caddy and a rigid external container) to make the separation of food waste easier for residents and to encourage them to take part in the service.

The types of food waste suitable for collection will depend on the treatment facilities available to a local authority. All food waste collected separately must be treated at enclosed facilities (for example, in-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion plants) that meet the requirements of the Animal By-Products Regulations and are approved by the State Veterinary Service. Typically this will include cooked and uncooked food, dairy products, meat, fish and fruit/vegetables.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what time period elapsed between the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease and cessation of work on dangerous viruses at the Pirbright laboratories. (157521)

Foot and mouth disease was first confirmed on a premises in Surrey on 3 August. As soon as the circulating virus strain was identified as the same strain as the one held at the Pirbright site on 4 August, DEFRA and Merial agreed that, because of the large quantities involved, the use of live virus would be voluntarily suspended by Merial. The case for a similar suspension at the Institute for Animal Health (IAH) was also considered on 4 August and has been kept under active review since then. Drawing on advice from the Health and Safety Executive, some modification has been made to the agreed areas where IAH can work with live virus. However, our judgment to date has been that, because of the small volumes of live virus handled by IAH and the additional measures the Institute has put in place, complete suspension is not justified.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been culled (a) on infected premises, (b) on the basis of slaughter on suspicion and (c) as a result of dangerous contact following the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. (158644)

[holding answer 16 October 2007]: A total of 2,160 animals have been compulsorily culled as a result of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A breakdown of the statistics is shown as follows:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many infected premises livestock has been slaughtered in relation to the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease; and how many individual holdings make up the number of infected premises. (157931)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: Livestock has been culled on eight infected premises during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. These eight infected premises comprised a total of 24 individual locations where susceptible livestock was culled.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on which premises livestock was culled during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease on the basis of (a) being on infected premises, (b) the policy of slaughter on suspicion, (c) dangerous contact and (d) being on contiguous premises. (157932)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: DEFRA policy is not to name individual affected premises. In addition to the eight infected premises there have been two premises on which animals were culled as part of the policy of slaughter on suspicion, and a further seven premises where animals were culled as dangerous contacts. There are no premises where animals have been culled solely on the basis that they were contiguous to an infected premises.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) infected premises, (b) slaughter on suspicion premises, (c) dangerous contacts and (d) contiguous premises were tested during the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease for signs of the disease; and how many in each category returned positive tests. (157933)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: Animals have been tested at all premises where culling has taken place for disease control reasons. At least one animal tested positive for foot and mouth disease at all eight of the infected premises. No animals at the two remaining slaughter on suspicion and seven dangerous contact premises tested positive for foot and mouth disease.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been slaughtered as a consequence of the ban on exports because of foot and mouth disease. (157700)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: DEFRA holds figures only for animals culled for disease control purposes. It is estimated that the number of animals (cattle, sheep and pigs) slaughtered for consumption in England during August and September this year is 14 per cent. below the same period in 2006 (equivalent to around 455,152 animals). This figure includes animals slaughtered in England but originating in Scotland and Wales.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) for what reasons trail and drag hunting is prohibited in foot and mouth disease low risk areas; (157068)

The current ban on trail and drag hunting across the whole of Great Britain is a legal requirement under the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) (England) Order 2006 and was also required by previous legislation dating back to 1983.

Epidemiological evidence from the current outbreak suggests that the disease could have been transmitted by fomites on vehicles or other bodies and could have been carried from areas containing infected animals to previously ‘clean’ areas.

The risk of horses, in particular, transporting the virus in this way is increased. This is because they are often kept on the same premises as susceptible animals, transported in vehicles used for moving susceptible animals, have contact with susceptible animals on neighbouring farms, or are handled by persons who also have contact with susceptible animals.

There are, therefore, tight controls on the types of activities such as trail and drag hunting involving horses.

Our many licensing priorities in both the FMD risk and low risk areas are constantly under review with consideration from the farming industry and experts. Any decision to allow trail and drag hunting under licence will be based on an assessment of the disease risk. We will continue to keep restrictions under review with the aim of lifting them as quickly as possible consistent with our overriding objective of eradicating FMD.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will review regulations that forbid trail and drag hunting and stalking in low risk foot and mouth areas such as Northumberland, Cumbria and Yorkshire. (157549)

[holding answer 16 October 2007]: The current ban on trail and drag hunting and stalking across the whole of Great Britain is a legal requirement under the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) (England) Order 2006 and was also required by previous legislation dating back to 1983.

Our licensing priorities are constantly under review with consideration from industry and experts. Any decision to allow trail and drag hunting will be based on assessment of the disease risk. We will continue to keep restrictions under constant review with the aim of lifting them as quickly as possible consistent with our overriding objective of eradicating FMD.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether his Department plans to establish an independent public inquiry into its handling of the foot and mouth outbreaks of 2007. (157420)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: Following the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in August and September 2007, the Prime Minister has asked Dr. Iain Anderson to look at the Government’s response to the outbreak. Dr. Anderson chaired the previous independent inquiry into the 2001 outbreak. The terms of reference for the Foot and Mouth Review 2007 are:

To conduct a review of the Government’s handling of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease during 2007, in order to:

i. Establish whether relevant points from the Lessons to be Learned Report on the 2001 outbreak were implemented;

ii. Establish whether new lessons might be drawn from the handling of the 2007 outbreak; and

iii. To make recommendations by the end of 2007 to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the future handling of foot and mouth disease outbreaks.

This is the most effective and efficient way to learn the lessons of this outbreak and respond accordingly. We have no plans to establish a public inquiry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have had with the National Farmers Union of Scotland on the outbreaks of (i) foot and mouth and (ii) blue tongue disease; (157150)

[holding answer 11 October 2007]: We are working closely with the Scottish Executive and others to co-ordinate our disease control response throughout the United Kingdom. DEFRA has had a range of discussions with the Scottish Executive throughout the current outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and bluetongue, at both ministerial and official level. The National Farmers Union (NFU) of Scotland have participated in discussions with officials from DEFRA and the Scottish Executive. We have also received a range of representations from the Scottish Executive and the NFU on these issues, including compensation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates he has made of the number of fat lambs which remain unsold due to foot and mouth restrictions. (157276)

It is estimated that the number of fat lambs slaughtered for consumption in England, during August and September this year, is 21 per cent. below the same period in 2006. This equates to around 370,000 animals and it includes lambs slaughtered in England but originating in Scotland and Wales.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will ensure price support is provided for farmers affected by the foot and mouth outbreaks of 2007. (157419)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: Under the Animal Health Act 1981, compensation is paid for animals that are compulsorily slaughtered to prevent the spread of disease. For foot and mouth disease (FMD), the Act requires that compensation is paid at the full market value before the animal became infected. This is determined by an approved valuer at the time of slaughter. Compensation is also paid for other items, such as farm equipment and feed, where these are seized because they are considered to be contaminated; this includes such things as milk. However, it is a long established principle that the Government do not meet the costs of consequential losses, which must be borne by the industry. Government seek to minimise the risk of market impacts, particularly by encouraging public understanding of the issues.

We are taking a risk-based and staged approach to easing movement restrictions when the evidence indicates that it is appropriate to do so. This is the best way to facilitate the return to normal working for the industry. We are working in partnership with the industry, but eradication of foot and mouth disease remains our priority.

There is a role for the Government in partially meeting the immediate need to encourage higher consumption at home and to provide an alternative market for products previously exported. On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Hilary Benn) announced a support package worth £12.5 million to stimulate the market and assist those livestock farmers worst affected by restrictions imposed as a result of FMD, Official Report, column 39. The package includes £8.5 million to provide support for our hill farmers; £1 million to assist farmers in the FMD risk area with the cost of removing fallen stock; £2 million to promote the sales of red meat and pork domestically and in our export markets; and a donation of up to £1 million to the Arthur Rank Centre for disbursement to Farming Help charities.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there are plans to repeal the Hares Preservation Act 1892 in full or in part. (158628)

[holding answer 17 October 2007]: DEFRA currently has no plans to repeal the Hares Preservation Act 1892 in full or in part.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what enforcement mechanisms exist to ensure that companies which fail to dispose properly of toxic waste are liable for damage caused as a result. (154589)

The illegal disposal of waste is a criminal offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Individuals and companies can be liable for the offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. When deciding on the severity of a sentence to impose on a company that has been found guilty of disposing of waste illegally, the court is able to take into consideration any damage caused as a result, including environmental damage.

In addition, sections 42 and 43 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 amended section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to give the courts new powers to:

(a) order an offender to pay the enforcing authority's investigation and enforcement costs, and any costs associated with the seizure of vehicles involved in the offence;

(b) require the offender to pay the Environment Agency, a local authority or the occupier or owner of land, any costs incurred in removing waste that has been illegally deposited. Clean-up costs can include removing the waste and/or taking other steps to reduce the consequences of the incident.

The Government are currently in the process of implementing the Environmental Liability Directive which is aimed at the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. This is based on the “polluter pays” principle.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what bio-security measures are in force at the Institute for Animal Health Laboratory and the adjoining Merial Animal Health Laboratory at Pirbright to ensure that human and animal health is not affected by work being carried out there; and if he will make a statement. (158629)

[holding answer 17 October 2007]: Stringent bio-security conditions have always applied to work carried out on the Pirbright site. Additional measures have now been implemented that go above and beyond those contained in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Spratt reports. These measures are set out in the Government's response to those reports, which is available in the Libraries of the House and on the DEFRA website.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which officials in his Department have been responsible for the inspection and licensing of Pirbright laboratories in each year since 2002; and whether those officials remain in post. (157316)

Inspections were carried out for the Department by senior DEFRA veterinarians with specialist knowledge of laboratory containment, exotic animal diseases and the requirements for licensing laboratories under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (SAPO) 1998. Some of these officials have since left the Department, for reasons not connected with this work, while others remain in post.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what policy line he took at the 14^th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on the sale of stockpiled ivory. (157775)

The UK policy was, and is, that we only support the one-off sale of stockpiled ivory where the conditions originally agreed by CITES parties in 2002 have been met. At the meeting of the 55^th CITES Standing Committee on 2 June 2007, immediately prior to the 14^th Conference of the Parties (CoP14), it was agreed that the conditions had been met and the stockpile sale was permitted. The UK was satisfied that the conditions had been met and, therefore, supported this decision at the meeting, with the proviso that funding for the subsequent monitoring of the outcomes of the sale was secured.

At the subsequent CoP14 (3-15 June), agreement was reached by African range states that increased tonnages could be sold, including stockpiles from Zimbabwe. It was also agreed that there will be a nine year “resting” period on consideration of any further sales of ivory after the one-off sale takes place to allow the effects of the stockpile sale to be properly assessed. Some of the proceeds of the sale will be placed in an African Elephant Fund to support conservation measures across their range.

Leading up to the Conference, the UK (and EU) maintained an open position on this issue preferring the African elephant range states to debate the issue among themselves. The UK Government was pleased that agreement over such a contentious issue was finally reached and fully supported the outcome.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the research report commissioned by his Department on the effect of best and most versatile land designation on planning decisions (LE0217). (158090)

I have arranged for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the amount of landfill tax which will be raised from waste arising from recent serious cases of flooding. (158251)

My Department has not specifically assessed the increase in landfill tax receipts following recent serious cases of flooding.

However, we would expect only a relatively small increase in municipal waste arisings as a result of recent flooding, which would be within the normal range of variations in annual waste arisings. This should not have a long-term or significant impact on waste management costs.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requirements there are for (a) new and (b) existing landfill sites to collect methane emissions from the site and use them as an energy source. (158089)

The EU Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) requires landfill gas to be collected from all new and existing landfill sites receiving biodegradable waste; landfill gas must be treated and used; and landfill gas which cannot be used to produce energy must be flared. The collection, treatment and use of landfill gas must be undertaken in a manner which minimises damage to or deterioration of the environment and risk to human health.

In this context, an existing landfill site is one which was operational on or after 16 July 2001.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what incentives his Department provides for local authorities to engage with local businesses to promote recycling. (157936)

[holding answer 15 October 2007]: The landfill tax escalator gives greater financial incentives to reduce, reuse and recycle waste. This was increased in the 2007 Budget so that the standard rate of tax will increase by £8 per year from 2008 until at least 2010-11. If private waste collectors that collect commercial waste fail to offer alternatives to landfill (such as recycling) they will find that the waste treatment services they offer will no longer be cost effective. This is an incentive for waste contractors to consider developing waste management partnerships with local authorities to provide services to local businesses.

In addition, the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Programme (BREW) has been developed to give money raised through the landfill tax back to business through funding resource efficiency and waste projects that will benefit business. The BREW Centre for Local Authorities was set up to help local authorities undertake a leadership role in supporting the business community to become more profitable through business resource efficiency and waste reduction.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional funding is being provided to local authorities to meet central Government recycling targets. (158115)

The main sources of funding for local authorities’ waste management services are revenue support grant (RSG) and national non-domestic rates (NNDR), distributed by central Government, and council tax. It is for local authorities to decide what proportion of this funding to invest in waste management services, including recycling. Other funding made available to authorities in England for waste management since 1997 is shown in the following table:

As part of Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, the Government have also announced a further step change in Private Finance Initiative spending on waste, more than doubling from £280 million in 2007-08 to £700 million by 2010-11, totalling £2 billion over the three years of the next spending period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Welsh Assembly Government on the CBI's proposals for UK and Europe-wide standards on waste management. (157336)

On 12 October 2006, the Government, in association with the devolved Administrations, published a consultation paper on the European Commission's proposal to revise the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The Commission's proposal included a provision to enable the adoption by comitology of EU-wide minimum standards for waste management operations. A summary and analysis of the responses to this consultation is available on the DEFRA website at:

www.defra.gov.uk.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) responded to DEFRA's consultation on the revision of the WFD. However, I am advised that DEFRA has no record of the CBI subsequently submitting proposals for UK and EU-wide standards on waste management. It follows that no discussions on such proposals have taken place with the Welsh Assembly Government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of methods to decontaminate surplus wood of toxic preservatives prior to being burned in commercial wood-burning furnaces or power plants. (157321)

No specific assessment has been made by my Department of the effectiveness of methods to decontaminate surplus wood of toxic preservatives prior to being burned in commercial wood-burning furnaces or power plants.

However, DEFRA’s Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme (WIDP) has investigated ways of diverting waste wood from landfill. This is in response to recommendation 4 of the Biomass Task Force Report to the Government, published in October 2005. DEFRA’s general conclusion is that it is more cost effective to treat contaminated waste wood as a waste and to dispose of it in a Waste Incineration Directive (WID)-compliant facility than to attempt to decontaminate and burn it in commercial wood-burning furnaces or power plants as a non-waste. Such WID-compliant facilities can recover energy as electricity, or electricity and heat in the form of combined heat and power for industrial purposes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what legislative provisions apply to the safe disposal of timber treated with (a) copper chrome arsenate, (b) ammoniacal copper quaternary, (c) copper azole, (d) boron, (e) creosote and (f) pyrethroid and metal-based light organic solvent preservatives. (157976)

All wastes must be recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

The Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) is implemented through the Waste Incineration (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No. 2980) and applies to the incineration of waste timber which has been treated with any of the substances mentioned.

The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) has been transposed via the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (as amended). One aspect of the Landfill Directive is that landfill sites have to be categorised into one of three types: hazardous, non-hazardous or inert. Hazardous and inert wastes for landfill have to meet the waste acceptance criteria destined for landfill. The criteria are limits of contaminants permitted in waste, together with testing standards and procedures that must be used. Hazardous wastes are also required to be pre-treated before landfill. From 30 October 2007, all non-hazardous and inert wastes going to landfill will also need to meet the pre-treatment requirement.

Where such waste timber, which is classed as hazardous waste under regulation 6 of the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 894), is disposed of by means other than incineration or landfill in a facility with a capacity of more than 10 tonnes per day, the facility is subject to the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) Directive (96/61/EC) which is implemented through the Pollution Prevention and Control(England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 1973).

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the reasons are for the time taken to produce the list of ministerial responsibilities; and if he will make a statement. (158570)

The new “List of Ministerial Responsibilities” has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available in the Vote Office for hon. Members.

To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission whether the Electoral Commission plans to appeal against the ruling of the High Court of August 2007 on impermissible donations to the UK Independence Party; and if he will make a statement. (158696)

The Electoral Commission informs me that, on 7 August 2007, judgment was given on an application by the Commission to Westminster magistrates court under section 58 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for forfeiture by the UK Independence Party of an amount equal to the value of certain donations the Party had accepted. The court found all of the donations in question to be from impermissible donors, but ordered the forfeiture of an amount equal in value to only some of those donations. On 21 August, the Electoral Commission commenced appeal proceedings. The appeal is for a judicial review by the High Court of the magistrates court’s decision not to order forfeiture of an amount equal in value to the remainder of the donations that were the subject of the original application. A date for the hearing has not yet been set.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were screened for breast cancer per head of the population in (a) Hertfordshire and (b) England in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. (157516)

The information requested is in the following table for 2005-06, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures are broken down by primary care trust (PCT) in Hertfordshire, along with figures for England. As the figures are for 2005-06, they are based on the previous PCT boundaries.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the NHS per patient of (a) long-acting reversible contraceptives and (b) other forms of contraception in the next five years. (157307)

In October 2005 the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued clinical guidance on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). It shows that all LARC methods are more cost effective than the combined oral contraceptive pill even at one year of use. The following table shows estimated method costs (per 1,000 women) after five years of use. Cost per patient is not estimated centrally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment has been made of the possible effects of skin-lightening products on health; and if he will make a statement; (157826)

I have been asked to reply.

No such assessments have been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 6 February 2007, Official Report, column 803W, if his Department will now collect information on dentist practices which have closed their lists to NHS patients since the inception of the new NHS dentist contract. (159034)

Information on dental practices which have ceased to provide national health service services since the launch of the reforms in April 2006 is not held centrally and there are no plans to make this an additional new central return.

Information is available on the number of dental contracts offered at the start of the new system in April 2006 and the number of those contracts signed and rejected. 8,377 out of 9,428 contracts offered were signed. 2,884 of these were initially signed in dispute. By 30 June 2007, the latest date for which information is available just 223 remained in dispute. Of the disputes resolved over 99 per cent. ended in the contractor staying with the NHS. This information is held by dental contract not by dentist. A contract may cover one dentist or a whole practice.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what spare capacity, expressed in patient numbers, is available for (a) under 18, (b) over 18 fee-paying and (c) over 18 charge-exempt people to register with each NHS dental practice in Peterborough; and if he will make a statement. (158647)

[holding answer 17 October 2007]: The information requested is not held centrally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts his Department signed on a consultancy basis with a net value of more than £20,000 in 2006. (159319)

The Department does not collect information on contracts signed on a consultancy basis with a net value of more than £20,000 in the format requested. To do so would attract disproportionate cost.

A new system will be introduced in April 2008 called SHOWA, which will be able to gather such information for the Department.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are seconded to his Department from outside Government; from which outside body each has been seconded; and what the length is of each secondment. (157892)

As at 1 September 2007, there were 61 people (57.7 full-time equivalent) seconded into the Department. The Department's main human resources information system does not show where a person has been seconded from, or the length of their secondment.

Work carried out to answer a previous Freedom of Information request suggested that virtually all secondees into the Department are from public sector organisations and anecdotally most of these are from national health service trusts or other health-related organisations. Secondments are normally for a period of up to two years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what official response the Government (a) has made and (b) plans to make to the report of the findings of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme; (157200)

The Department is grateful to the Management Committee of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme for producing the “Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme Report 2007—MTHR Programme Management Committee” published on 12 September. The report is available in the Library and at www.mthr.org.uk.

We shall also send a copy to hon. Members, as we believe it will be helpful when responding to enquiries from constituents about mobile phone technology and health.

The Health Protection Agency’s (HPA) Radiation Protection Division has the responsibility of advising on radiation risk and health protection matters. In undertaking this role the HPA monitors progress in radiation and electromagnetic field health research, that is undertaken throughout the world, in order to inform its advice. The MTHR results will add to the information available to the HPA in support of that advice.

The Department’s advice that is currently available in the form of leaflets and web based information will be updated in the course of the next few months in co-operation with the HPA and Health Department officials in the devolved Administrations.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many renal counsellors are employed in England; at which kidney units they are located and what services they provide; whether their services are provided by the NHS; how many and what proportion of kidney patients saw a counsellor in the last 12 months; what the average number of sessions with a counsellor for each patient was in that period; by what means kidney patients may access counsellors and how they are informed of their ability to do so; and whether counsellors are employed solely to aid kidney patients. (158396)

This information is not collected centrally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the implications of stigma surrounding mental health in England; and if he will make a statement. (157605)

The Department recognises that the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental illness is a major social problem. People with mental health problems are one of the most excluded social groups in society, with fewer than a quarter in employment. They can find themselves excluded from education, health care and community participation. People with mental illness who disclose their condition can find themselves shunned by neighbours and colleagues while some do not disclose their illness to family and friends. For many people with mental illness, a diagnosis of mental illness can have a worse impact upon their lives than their symptoms.

The Department is funding a five-year programme, Shift, through the Care Services Improvement Programme to tackle the stigma and discrimination which surrounds mental illness. Shift is working with various bodies, and its focus this year is on the media and employers. On World Mental Health day on 10 October, Shift launched guidance for employers on improving their recruitment and retention processes for people with mental health problems.

The Department and Shift are working with the mental health charity sector consortium, Moving People, which has recently won £18 million from the Big Lottery and Comic Relief to run a four-year anti-stigma and mental health promotion campaign. The details of how the Government will support this initiative, which involves Mind, Rethink, Mental Health Media and the Institute of Psychiatry, are being formulated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives were in training in Stockport Primary Care Trust hospitals in each year since 1997. (158000)

The requested information is not collected centrally.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of services provided by the NHS for people with myasthenia gravis; and if he will make a statement. (157382)

We have made no assessment of the services provided by the national health service for people with myasthenia gravis.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he plans to make for cross-border user representation within local involvement networks to reflect situations where residents from one local authority area routinely use services within another. (159095)

We recognise the need for local involvement networks (LINks) arrangements to reflect the fact that some people do use health and social care services outside the local authority area where they reside. That is why we have ensured there is appropriate provision within the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, currently before Parliament, to enable LINks activities not only to relate to health and social care services provided within their local authority area, but also health and social care services provided, in any place, for people from the area. We have also included provisions which will enable LINks to work together, regionally and/or nationally, as a means of undertaking their activities.

We intend to published guidance for LINks in the spring and as part of this guidance we will explore in detail how LINks might work together to ensure cross-border representation for patients.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines there are for provision of palliative care for patients who wish to die at home; and if he will make a statement. (157995)

Three key tools—the Gold Standards Framework, the Liverpool Care Pathway and the Preferred Priorities for Care—are used as a basis for providing training for generalist staff in the principles of palliative care so that all patients at the end of life have access to high quality care.

Over the last three years we have invested £12 million in an end of life care programme to promote roll-out of these tried and tested tools, and thus promote greater choice for patients about where they are able to be cared for and die.

Latest figures show that one or more of these tools is being used in 69 per cent. of general practitioners practices, 81 per cent. of hospitals, 41 per cent. of community hospitals, 69 per cent. of hospices and 6.4 per cent. of care homes. The Department is currently developing the first ever end of life care strategy for adults, which will deliver increased choice to all adult patients regardless of their condition about where they live and die, and provide them with support to make this possible.

We have deferred publication of the strategy to allow us to take account of the important work being undertaken on end of life care at strategic health authority (SHA) level for the next stage review which will be completed in the new year. We have provided SHAs with information that we hope they will find useful and it is important that we now take account of their work to ensure that the national strategy encompasses local innovation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what amount of funding was allocated in each primary care trust area to palliative care for patients who wish to die at home in each year since 1997. (157996)

This information is not available centrally. Primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning and funding services to meet the needs of their resident population including those for end of life care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many licences to sell alcohol were (a) suspended and (b) revoked in (i) London and (ii) England in each year since 1997 on grounds of the sale of alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years. (158807)

This information is not held centrally.

Past and future statistical bulletins on licences to sell alcohol include the number of licences revoked, but do not give reasons. Licences may be revoked for a number of reasons or a variety of factors, including sales to children. Prior to 24 November 2005, statistical returns did not differentiate between alcohol licences not renewed and licences revoked.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 11 October 2007, Official Report, column 693W, on the Big Lottery Fund, whether interest is earned on this sum. (159357)

The overall balance held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) on behalf of the 13 non-Olympic distributing bodies is invested by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND).

The interest earned on this investment is shared between the 13 distributors in the same fixed percentages as income generated by the national lottery operator, Camelot, and becomes available for distribution to the good causes they support. The Big Lottery Fund receives 50 per cent. of the interest earned on the overall NLDF balance. Its share is not directly related to the size of its individual NLDF balance.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much revenue was collected from fees for bookmakers' premises licences in the UK in 2006-07; and what percentage of this came from independent bookmakers. (159031)

For 2006-07, and until 1 September 2007 when the Gambling Act 2005 was implemented, bookmakers required both a bookmaker's permit and a betting office licence. These were issued and charged for by local magistrates, under the Gaming Act 1968. Since 1 September local licensing authorities have issued premises licences. Information on revenue from this source raised by local licensing authorities, and previously by magistrates, is not held centrally. Data could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many independent bookmakers there are in the UK; and what the cost to them of (a) licence fees charged, (b) the operating licence charged and (c) the premises licence charged was in 2006-07. (159032)

Bookmakers have been able to apply to the Gambling Commission for operating licences under the Gambling Act 2005 from 1 January 2007. There is no defined category of “independent bookmaker”. Total numbers of off-course bookmakers to which the Commission has issued operating licences to date are:

Both application fees and annual fees are charged by the Commission, in accordance with the table. In the period to 31 March 2007 it collected £56,318 in application fees from off-course bookmakers. Premises licence fees are a matter for local licensing authorities, and data are not collected centrally.