asked Her Majesty's Government:Which victims groups in Northern Ireland have been audited each year since 1990; and on what basis the audits were carried out. [HL3269]

To meet the responsibilities placed on departments in government accounting 2000, the Victims Liaison Unit, in August 2002, commissioned independent auditors to carry out an audit of 15 per cent of victims' groups in receipt of core funding under the core funding scheme 2000–02. Eight groups were selected for review—FACT, FAIR, Firinne, HURT, Koram Centre, VAST, WAVE and West Tyrone Voice.One group was selected for audit on the basis that its allocation was higher than the average allocation from the scheme. Another group was selected because of concerns about the management of its allocation. The remaining groups were divided into two categories—those serving a mainly Protestant community and those serving a mainly Catholic community. These categories were further sub-divided into groups operating east of the Bann and groups operating west of the Bann. Groups were then selected at random from these categories.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How much has been spent on consultations since June 2001 by each government department in Northern Ireland. [HL3519]

The amount of money spent on consultation exercises undertaken by the government departments in Northern Ireland since June 2001 is shown in the attached table. Figures relate to core departments, excluding agencies and NDPBs.

	£
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development	52,840
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure	31,918.43
The Department of Education	576,529
The Department of the Environment	147,589
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment	49,125
The Department for Employment and Learning	145,594
The Department of Finance and Personnel	5,477
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety	374,378

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will take action under paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 7 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 against Ms Patricia Kelly who has withdrawn from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. [HL3316]

Ms Patricia Kelly resigned from her post of Commissioner in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on 30 June 1994, citing the commission's handling of the Holy Cross case as the reason for her resignation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the closing date for applications to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is 9 July as indicated in the advertisement to the public, or 16 July, as indicated in the information pack and in the application form; and why the dates are different; and [HL3659]In seeking applications for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, what is meant by bodies nominating individuals; what bodies are envisaged; and whether the nominees will be treated as representatives of such bodies; and [HL3660]In seeking applications for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, how they propose to deal with (a) individual applications; and (b) nominations from bodies; and [HL3661]Whether appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be made on the basis of merit alone; whether this approach will be qualified in accordance with Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and how the statutory requirement of representativeness will affect selection on the basis of merit alone; and [HL3662]Who will be the independent assessor on the appointment panel for the appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and how the independence of that assessor will be determined. [HL3663]

It would be better for me to answer the noble Lord's Questions in one extended Answer.The difference in the dates between the closing dates on the advertisement and the information pack was down to an out-dated document accidentally being posted onto the NIO website indicating that the closing date was 9 July. We rectified this as soon as we discovered the error. All advertisements in the press and other correspondence stated the (original) correct closing date of 16 July. The closing date was later extended to 28 July. Following requests from a number of people, we judged that an extension would be in the best interests of the commission. We are confident that a broad cross-section of the community has applied and are encouraged by the number of applicants; 14 for chief commissioner and 162 for commissioner posts.The term "bodies nominating individuals" was used to indicate political parties and other organisations who wished to nominate people to apply for appointments to the commission. Any individual or organisation was eligible to make nominations if they wanted. The information pack made clear that any nominees who applied would be tested in the same way as every other applicant with regard to the criteria. The fact that they had been nominated by an organisation would not be a discriminating or plus factor in their application.Appointments to the commission are conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This code of practice sets out the regulatory framework for an appointments process. All public appointments are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit, individuals who through their abilities, experience and qualities match the need of the public body in question. This means that all applicants to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission must go through the same application and interview process.Under Section 68(3) of the Northern Ireland Act, the Secretary of State is obliged to ensure that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is broadly representative of the community in Northern Ireland.The Government take the issue of representativeness seriously and will do their best to ensure that the commission has the confidence of all parts of the community.The independent assessor throughout the process and on the interview panel will be John Keanie. Mr Keanie is on the OCPA accredited list of assessors.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What reasons have been given by members of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for resigning; and whether they will place copies of all relevant correspondence in the Library of the House. [HL3867]

There have been a total of six resignations from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The details of which are as follows:

Commissioner	Reason for Resignation	Date Resigned
Angela Hegarty	Personal Reasons	1 December 2000
Prof Christine Bell	The Commission's lack of powers and resources	9 September 2002
Dr Inez McCormack	The Commission's lack of powers and resources	9 September 2002

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 22 June (

I refer the noble Lord to my Answers on 10 June 2004 (WA 39) and (WA 42). While there were discussions between the two sponsor departments and the Ulster-Scots Agency about their 2004 budget, ultimately it did not prove possible to obtain the agency's full agreement to the budget approved by both departments.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Ulster Scots Agency in Belfast is obliged, if requested by a citizen of the Irish Republic, to respond in Irish. [HL4037]

There is no such statutory obligation arising in NI to respond in Irish to an Irish citizen though the Irish Official Languages Act 2003 may create one in that jurisdiction, by virtue of the agency's status as part of a North/South Implementation Body. The Government would encourage all public bodies, as a courtesy, to respond to correspondence in Irish, Ulster-Scots or any other recognised regional or minority language under the Council of Europe Charter, if requested to do so. In that regard, I refer the noble Lord to my Answers of 10 June 2004 (WA 42) and 6 May 2004 (WA 126) referring to the code of practice currently being prepared, which will be used by the North/South Language Body.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether AIDS-affected African countries are given any priority in the funding of education and other development programmes to assist them in achieving millennium development goals. [HL3856]

Many of the African countries worst affected by AIDS are among the Department for International Development's (DfID's) 16 focus countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Over 80 per cent of AIDS deaths occur in these countries.Several DfID African bilateral country programmes have recently stepped up expenditure in support of programmes to help combat AIDS. In addition, DfID will make AIDS a priority for the extra £320 million that the UK will be devoting to Africa in 2006. On 20 July the Prime Minister launched the new UK Strategy on HIV and AIDS. The strategy provides the framework for how the UK Government will spend an additional £1.5 billion to combat AIDS globally. At least £150 million will be spent helping children whose parents have died from AIDS and other children made vulnerable by AIDS.However, if the millennium development goals are to be met we need to do more than scale up HIV and AIDS specific programmes. The socio-economic impact of AIDS and the vulnerability of poor people in Africa to AIDS mean that we also need to target assistance at broader development programmes, including in the health and education sectors in the countries most at risk.This is already happening. In 2002–03 the sixteen African target countries received 88 per cent of DfID funds for Africa. In most of DfID's focus countries in Africa we provide significant support for education programmes, (into which HIV/AIDS issues are integrated). In Malawi, DfID supports the education sector to increase children's access to equitable primary education of improved quality. This includes support for life skills education where all children from grade 4 learn about HIV/AIDS. On health, more broadly, DfID recognises that most African partner countries have extremely weak health systems. Since 1997, DfID has committed over £1.5 billion to strengthening health systems globally.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether there is evidence, either in relation to the right of petition under the First Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or under the legal systems of contracting parties to the covenant, that a free-standing legal provision against discrimination could lead to an increase in the amount of litigation. [HL4066]

Between 1977 and October 2002, 205 complaints were brought before the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the First Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights about matters covered by the free-standing legal provision against discrimination contained in Article 26 of the covenant. Of those, the committee declared 120 inadmissible. Therefore the average increase in the number of cases of this type actually considered by the committee was about four per year shared between the states that had ratified the protocol during that period.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Which of the 20 non-governmental organisations, listed in Appendix 2 to the report on the outcome of the Interdepartmental Review of International Human Rights Instruments, recommended acceptance of the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and which of them recommended non-acceptance. [HL4063]

The following non-governmental organisations recommended acceptance of the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Justice, the British Institute of Human Rights, Amnesty International, Liberty, the Law Society, the Institute for Public Policy Research, The Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Aire Centre, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Centre, and the London School of Economics. No organisation listed at Appendix 2 to the report on the outcome of the Inter-Departmental Review of International Human Rights Instruments recommended non-acceptance of the protocol.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether following the report of the Review of International Human Rights Instruments, they are aware of any other government or independent legal expert which has expressed doubts as to whether Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights permits a defence of objective and reasonable justification on the same basis as under Article 14 of the convention; and, if so, which government or independent legal expert has done so. [HL4067]

The Government are satisfied that there remain unacceptable uncertainties regarding the impact of Protocol 12. It has reached this view independently of the views of other governments or outside legal experts.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they plan to reciprocate the French Government's gesture in inviting British troops to participate in the Bastille Day parade; and, if so, how. [HL3906]

The Government are planning a reciprocal visit for President Chirac in November 2004 to mark the centenary of the Entente Cordiale. There have been preliminary discussions and the options are under consideration. However, no proposals have yet been made.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Which companies are currently involved in the NITEworks partnership; and what topics NITEworks is currently addressing. [HL4018]

There are 10 alliance partners (AMS, BAE Systems, EADS, EDS, GD(UK), Logica CMG, MBDA, QinetiQ, Raytheon, Thales) who have full visibility and rights to participate in NITEworks experiments, together with a further 31 associate participants who are involved as appropriate depending on their specialist skills or expertise.NITEworks has six current experimental themes, they are: Kill Chain Development stage 2; Indirect Fire Integration; Joint Operational Picture; ISTAR Request For Information Management; Command & Battlespace Management (Land); and Component Command Information System Integration. New themes are being developed in the areas of combat identity; effects-based operations; maritime command and control; logistics command and control; and the exploitation of network enabled capability in our exercise programmes.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What action they have taken or are planning regarding the Thrombolysis in Cardiac Arrest Study in the light of the approval in principle of the relevant Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee and the requirements of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031). [HL3925]

The Government recognise the importance that ethical and necessary research in emergency situations continues to develop and improve treatment and care. The Medicines for Human use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 apply to clinical trials in emergency situations. Guidance is being considered on how informed consent can be obtained from a legal representative in an emergency situation where the individual affected is incapable of giving consent. The Government are considering as a matter of urgency whether any changes to the regulations are needed or whether further guidance for clinical trials in emergency situations will suffice.The Department of Health is committed to improving and developing strategies for treatment of patients suffering from heart attack and cardiac arrest. The National Defibrillator Programme and funding of paramedic thrombolysis are examples of this commitment.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many nurses specialise in (a) lung cancer; and (b) breast cancer. [HL4103]

Information is not collected centrally on the number of nurses specialising in lung or breast cancer. As at March 2004, there were 396,369 qualified nurses employed in the National Health Service, an increase of 77,500 since September 1997.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What directions the Secretary of State for Transport gave to the Strategic Rail Authority to use its powers under Section 206 of the Transport Act 2000 to formulate a strategy for the Rail Regulator to ensure that the outcome of the access charges regime in 2003 was affordable within the context of the 10-year plan. [HL4031]

The Secretary of State's Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) of 11 April 2002, as subsequently amended, include directions on the steps the SRA should take with regard to its strategies in the context of any access charge review.

asked Her Majesty's Government:In the light of the Department for Transport White Paper,

The department does not set targets for expenditure. Decisions relating to the allocation of the 2004 Spending Review settlement between different modes will be taken in due course.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they plan to publish a national ports strategy following rejection of the proposal for a new port complex at Dibden Bay. [HL4071]

Following the Government's decision on the Dibden Bay proposal in April, three further proposals for major container port development remain to be determined by the Secretary of State for Transport; these decisions will be made within the Government's national policy framework already in place for ports, as set out in Modern Ports: A UK Policy in 2000. Once those decisions have been taken, expected by autumn 2005, the Government will review their policy framework for the sustainable development of ports as indicated in The Future of Transport published in July.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 6 October 2003 (

Following completion of the passage of the Traffic Management Act 2004, we have now resumed work on the regulations with the aim of making them as soon as possible.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Which body is responsible for ensuring that healthy food options are available at all times in Moto motorway restaurants on the M4. [HL4126]

The range of food options offered at motorway service area restaurants, including those on the M4 run by Moto, are a matter for the individual operators who are likely to be responsive to public demand.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are (a) the current budget; and (b) the emerging costs of Transport Direct; and when they expect that the system will be available for public use. [HL4113]

£51 million capital funding has been allocated to the Transport Direct programme:Development of the portal—£27 million. This comprises: contract costs—£17 million; hardware—£0.5 million; data—£4.5 million: project costs—£5 million.The remainder will be spent on future enhancements to the portal, including delivery through other media; development of the JourneyWeb protocol (that allows different systems to communicate with each other); development of internationally recognised technical standards; further development of real-time information; publicity and marketing.The £51 million capital funding was allocated to Transport Direct in the Spending Review 2002 covering the period April 2003 to March 2006. Capital prior to this was in the region of £2.5 million and revenue costs were approximately £1 million.The Transport Direct site was first made available to the public, as a trial version, on 12 July 2004. Currently, further testing is being undertaken and initial user feedback is being gauged. The official launch of the first full version of the Transport Direct site is expected to take place within the next few months.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Davies of Oldham on 22 July (

(a) In order to allow further testing to take place and also to gauge initial user feedback, Transport Direct is currently running a trial version of the website. As a result, publicity, including links from other sites, is being limited until the first full version is officially launched. This official launch is expected to take place within the next few months.

(b) The functions available on the Transport Direct website are divided into three principal categories: "Journey Planner", "Mapping" and "Live Travel", all of which are very easy to access from the site's homepage.

The "Live Travel" category gives information on real-time information for all rail stations in Great Britain, live travel news that shows incidents that occur and a service that notifies users of disruptions to their journey. The "Journey Planner" category allows the user to plan their journey. Every answer shown for car journey searches will take into account historical congestion data for the given route.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will make available the results of the consultation by Eurocontrol on the "Draft SES Implementing Rule on a Common Charging Scheme for Air Navigation Services." [HL4150]

The European Commission has mandated Eurocontrol to draft an Implementing Rule on a Common Charging Scheme for Air Navigation Services. Eurocontrol is required to consult with all stakeholders in developing the implementing rule and present its final draft together with the results of the consultation exercise to the European Commission. This is a European Commission process and not a UK Government initiative. However, we are encouraging the European Commission to make available the results of the consultation to all stakeholders.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the emphasis given to reducing congestion and accidents and in improving the overall quality of life, set out in the Transport Objectives and Performance Targets (in the July White Paper,

All local transport schemes, including roads, proposed for government funding are subject to comprehensive appraisal on criteria which reflect the need to reduce congestion and accidents and to improve the overall quality of life.We will be considering the A31 Hickley's Corner underpass scheme carefully alongside other bids for major scheme funding submitted as part of the 2004 Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. We expect to announce our decisions on bids in the LTP settlement later this year.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many electors, representing what percentage of the electorate, were registered to vote by post for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament in each constituency in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available. [HL3961]

The independent Electoral Commission's report Postal votes, proxy votes and spoilt ballot papers at the 2001 general election provides the information sought for each constituency in Scotland at the 2001 general election, and is the most recent information that is available for elections to the United Kingdom Parliament. The report can be obtained from the Electoral Commission and a copy is in the Library of each House.