Written Answers
Thursday, 29th March 2001.
Magistrates: Political Affiliations
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have regard to the party political affiliation of applicants for the lay magistracy; and, if so, whether they will publish details of the numbers of lay magistrates affiliated to, or members of, political parties in England and Wales. [HL1245]
The instructions to my Advisory Committees as regards political affiliation are clear. They are set out in paragraph 8.8 of my Directions to Advisory Committees on Justices of the Peace, a copy of which is in the Library. They make plain that:
The pre-eminent requirement for appointment to the magistracy is that a candidate must be personally suitable, possessing the six key qualities required in a magistrate (good character; understanding and communication; social awareness; maturity and sound temperament; sound judgment; commitment and reliability).Despite the fact that political affiliation has been used by successive Lord Chancellors as a proxy for social balance I doubt its continuing relevance and with this in mind I issued a consultation paper in 1998,"The political views of a candidate are neither a qualification nor a disqualification for appointment. However, the Lord Chancellor requires, in the interests of balance, that the voting pattern for the area as evidenced by the last two general elections, should be broadly reflected in the composition of the bench."
Political Balance in the Lay Magistracy, seeking views. Respondents favoured removing political affiliation as a balancing factor but could offer no viable alternative. I decided in 1999. reluctantly, that political balance would have to remain for the time being, but instructed my officials to continue to work on an alternative. Later this year pilots will be conducted to ascertain whether or not a combination of social and occupational groupings would be a practical alternative to political balance.
I said in my Judicial Appointments Annual Report 1999/2000 (Cm 4783) (paragraph 5.21) that I hoped it would be possible to provide a breakdown of the lay magistracy in England and Wales by each balancing criterion (gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation) in my next Annual Report. I still hope to do so. However, this is dependent upon successful completion of the validation of the records held on all 26,000 magistrates for which I am responsible, on a relatively new
computer database. If the validation is not completed in time to include the figures in this year's report, I will announce in this year's report when the figures will be published.
Civil Procedure Rules
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have made any assessment of the Civil Procedure Rules introduced in April 1999. [HL1515]
My department has today published Emerging Findings: An Early Evaluation of the Civil Justice Reforms, which sets out the evidence we have so far and plans for further evaluation. The paper shows that the reforms have been generally welcomed and appear to be working well.The key findings from the report are:
- overall there has been a drop in the number of claims issued, in particular in the types of claim where the new Civil Procedure Rules have been introduced;
- anecdotal evidence suggests pre-action protocols are working well to promote settlement before issue and to reduce the number of ill-founded claims;
- the system of claimants offers has been welcomed by all interested groups as a means of resolving claims more quickly;
- there has been a rise in the number of cases in which Alternative Dispute Resolution is used, suggesting that, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, parties are more likely to try alternative means of settling claims;
- the use of single joint experts appears to have worked well. It is likely that their use has contributed to a less adversarial culture, earlier settlement and may have cut costs;
- the time between issue and hearing for those cases which go to trial has fallen;
- it is too early to provide a definitive view on costs with statistics difficult to obtain and conflicting anecdotal evidence.
Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.
Public Trust Office
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they are taking to reform the Public Trust Office. [HL1516]
On 1 April 2001 the Public Guardianship Office will become a new executive agency of my department. Also from 1 April 2001, the Public Trust Office's Court Funds Office will transfer to the Court Service and its trust work to the Office of the Official Solicitor. The Public Trust Office will cease to exist.The Public Guardianship Office will discharge the Court of Protection's decisions on behalf of people with mental incapacity. In creating the Public Guardianship Office, I wish to promote and protect the financial and social well-being of people with mental incapacity by providing a seamless service that is responsive to their needs. The Public Guardianship Office will provide a service which will strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable while avoiding unnecessary state intervention.I will retain ministerial accountability for the new agency's performance. The Chief Executive of the Public Guardianship Office will have clear responsibilities for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service. These responsibilities are set out in the agency's Framework Document, which will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.A corporate and business plan setting out the Public Guardianship Office's plans to achieve its aim and objectives over the first three years of its operation will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I have set the following Key Performance Measures to challenge the Public Guardianship Office to provide a high quality and efficient service to its clients while developing increasing professionalism as an organisation.PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP OFFICE EXECUTIVE AGENCY KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS 2001–02KPM 1: To develop an effective system for identifying clients' needs.To develop and implement a comprehensive needs assessment system by 31 March 2004.KPM 2: To increase the proportion of effective visits.To maintain the current level of visits and to develop appropriate criteria as a basis to measure improvements in effectiveness by end June 2001, thereafter to announce challenging targets against which to measure the Public Guardianship Office's performance in increasing the proportion of effective visits.KPM 3: To increase the percentage of accounts collected on time and reviewed on time, as a basis for effective action to meet clients' needs.To complete the review of 95 per cent of accounts received or have requested further information within six weeks of receipt.To collect 50 per cent of accounts within two months of the accounting end date, 70 per cent within four months of the accounting end date; and 100 per cent within six months of the accounting end date, referring cases to the Court of Protection where necessary or taking other steps to ensure proper accounts are produced on behalf of clients.KPM 4: To improve investment performance.To ensure that annually 85 per cent and on a three-year rolling basis 80 per cent of measured funds perform in line with a model performance based upon the Association of Private Client and Investment Managers' (APCIMS) capital indices; or an acceptable performance is achieved, taking into account the clients' overall circumstances, including the income generated.KPM 5: To secure an improved service in:
- responding to correspondence
- payment out
- providing information to receivers to enable them to support our clients
- closing cases
and to survey at two yearly intervals to ensure that these are the most important areas for customer care.
Responding to Letters: Respond to 85 per cent of letters, faxes and e-mails within 15 working days of receipt and 95 per cent in 20 days.
Payment out: For 95 per cent of requests, pay out or despatch direction to external receiver allowing access to funds to use for benefit of client within 15 working days of receipt.
Information to Receivers: Despatch court orders and directions to applicants, receivers or their representatives in 95 per cent of cases within 30 days of their being made.
Closing cases: For 95 per cent of complete applications for final directions, transfer all of clients' assets to personal representatives within 25 days.
KPM 6: To establish protocols for working with our receivers and our partners setting out the outcomes we intend to achieve jointly for clients.
To establish protocols with the key bodies with whom the Public Guardianship Office has regular dealings by April 2002, setting out the outcomes to be achieved jointly for clients and memorandums of understanding setting out the ways the office and its partners will work together to achieve those outcomes.
KPM 7: To demonstrate our capability through a basket of measures:
- percentage of staff having required skills and competencies
- percentage receiving training
- an effective research programme which underpins planning to meet clients' needs
- development of an automated case management system.
Staff Skills and Competencies: At least 90 per cent of permanent staff to have a current Personal Development Plan which identifies their learning and development needs and makes specific plans to develop their skills and competencies to defined standards.
Staff Training: At least 75 per cent of permanent staff to receive at least three days' training in line with their Personal Development Plan.
Research: To complete at least one research study by 31 March 2002 and develop and publish a detailed research plan by 31 March 2002.
Automated case management system (MERIS): To award the contract for an automated case management system to a supplier before end of third quarter 2001–02; design and development by supplier to commence before the end of the fourth quarter 2001–02.
KPM 8: Cost per unit.
To develop an appropriate unit cost per case as a basis to measure improvements in efficiency by end June 2001. To announce targets for 2001–02 requiring improvements in efficiency based on the unit cost.
Export Control And Non-Proliferation Bill: Draft
asked Her Majesty's Government:When they will publish the draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill. [HL1451]
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is today publishing for consultation the draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill. Copies of the Consultation on Draft Legislation: the Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill (CM5091) will be laid before the House and will be available at the Vote Office. Copies will also be available from the Stationery Office and on my department's website.The draft Bill replaces in full the export control powers in the Import, Export and Customs (Powers) Defence Act 1939. Export controls currently imposed under the 1939 Act include both strategic export controls, which are the responsibility of my department, and export controls on cultural objects, which are the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Bill is intended both to provide for improved accountability for and transparency in export controls and to provide a more up-to-date and comprehensive legislative framework for export controls.The draft Bill establishes the purposes for which export controls can be imposed and will provide for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation made under it. These measures will meet recommendations made by Sir Richard Scott in his report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions. The Bill also provides for annual reports to be laid before Parliament.The draft Bill provides the Government with new powers to impose controls on the transfer of military and dual-use technology by intangible means and the provision of related technical assistance, and on activities connected with international trade (usually referred to as trafficking and brokering) between overseas countries in military or dual-use equipment.The Introduction to the Bill in Part I of the
Consultation on Draft Legislation sets out the controls
which the Government propose to introduce in secondary legislation to be made under these new powers. These are as follows:
- Controls on the electronic transfer of military technology in line with similar controls already introduced for dual-use technology in the new European Dual-Use Items Regulation which came into force in September 2000.
- Controls on the transfer of technology by any intangible means and the provision of technical services intended for weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes. These controls will meet the requirements of a European Union Joint Action agreed in June 2000.
- Controls on the trafficking and brokering of weapons and related equipment to any destination. In addition, controls will be introduced which will be used to prohibit trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations and trafficking and brokering in types of equipment whose export we have already banned because of evidence of their use in torture.
The Bill will also allow for imposition of export licensing procedures and includes a power to require the provision of certain information which is intended primarily to ensure that the Government can meet its reporting obligations to international bodies, such as the UN Conventional Arms Register. The Bill allows for the maximum penalty for offences in respect of matters controlled under the powers in the Bill to be raised from the current maximum level of seven years' imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years.
Views are invited from all those with an interest in either strategic export controls or export controls on cultural objects by Thursday 24 May.
Financial Services And Markets Act 2000: Consultation On Orders
asked Her Majesty's Government:In respect of orders implementing the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, what the next stage of public consultation will involve; and when it will be carried out. [HL1511]
We are today publishing a further batch of consultation documents on the:
- Disclosure of Confidential Information Regulations 2001
- Mutual Societies Order 2001
- Communications by Auditors Regulations 2001
- Control of Business Transfers (Requirements on Applicants) Regulations 2001
- Transitional Provisions, Repeals and Savings (Financial Services Compensation Scheme) Order 2001
- Transitional Provisions (Ombudsman Scheme and Complaints Scheme)
These documents will be available shortly on the Treasury Website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pub/html/reg/index.html. copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Hard copies are available by telephoning Deirdre Barrie on 020 7270 1634. Responses to consultation are requested by 25 May 2001.
Rural Tourism Initiatives
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport press release of 12 March regarding the meeting held on 15 March to consider the crisis in rural tourism, what package of measures was considered to assist the tourism industry; and what measures will be introduced by the Government as a consequence of this meeting. [HL1271]
I would refer the noble Baroness to the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on behalf of the Rural Task Force Chairman, Michael Meacher, to the House on 20 March 2001 (Official Report, cols. 1335–37). The results of the meeting Janet Anderson, Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting had with members of the tourism industry on 15 March were reported to the Rural Task Force prior to the announcement.
Silbury Hill
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the extent of the damage to the top of Silbury Hill; what emergency works are necessary to prevent any further subsidence of material into the shaft, which has remained open since it was rediscovered in May 2000; and what advice they have been given on a permanent solution that will maintain the original profile of the summit. [HL1326]
A shaft approximately 10m deep and 1.8m by 1.8m wide opened up in May last year on the top of Silbury Hill. A scaffolding cover with secured metal sheeting was immediately erected to provide protection to the shaft and the surrounding area. This was intended to be a temporary measure while a method of backfilling the shaft was devised. In December, the shaft further collapsed and changed shape. There is now a hole 3.8m deep and 7.2m by 5.5m wide. Structural engineers consider that no backfilling can take place at the top of the hill as this may cause even further damage. It is likely that the mineshaft and any other voids within the hill will have to be grouted from the base of the hill upwards. A seismic survey will be undertaken in the near future to map the voids within the hill, so that a detailed repair specification can be drawn up.
London Underground: Escalator Replacement
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February (
WA 56–57), whether they consider ten, nine and nine months to replace escalators numbers 3, 5 and 8 at Notting Hill Gate Underground station to be a satisfactory performance; and [HL1349]
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February ( WA 56–57) on length of time taken to replace escalators at Notting Hill Gate Underground station, whether they will now commission a report to establish how many hours per day per week are worked on replacing escalators on the London Underground; how far these hours are a consequence of recommendations of the Health & Safety Executive: and whether they will make the results available to the House. [HL1354]
>
London Underground (LUL) inform me that the escalators at Notting Hill Gate station are some of the oldest on the network, all of them dating back to commission dates in 1959–60. The plan to replace all six in one major project therefore represents a very substantial programme of work designed to benefit customers, but with some inevitable disruption while key works are completed.An alternative would be to close the station to allow work to proceed more quickly but LUL wished to maintain its service to customers. LUL therefore decided that it was best to keep the station open while closely monitoring the existing escalators in operation and ensuring that safety is paramount at all times. As I said in my earlier Answer of 15 February (HL 679) LUL's escalators are subject to very heavy-duty usage, and in many cases they are specially built for each individual location and have to be installed piece by piece on site. The actual time for each renewal can therefore vary according to the location and inherent difficulties such as space etc.Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate do not make recommendations regarding the hours of work on escalators at Underground stations. However, they do take the view that where major escalator works are taking place there may be risks to passengers should certain work be done when the station is open to passengers. As examples, "hot" work (such as flame cutting or welding) with its associated fire risk or movement of large equipment and materials would not be possible in a working station. LUL take account of these requirements in planning their work.The Government are concerned about the issue of works on escalators, and believe that it is important for escalators to work smoothly and to be maintained, replaced and refurbished in the minimum time required which is consistent with safety and value for money. We are therefore encouraging LUL, in the interests of customers, to take steps to improve escalator availability.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February (
WA 56–57), in view of the proposed completion date of September 2002 for the escalator renewal project at Notting Hill Gate Underground station, whether they consider it satisfactory that work on the project takes place for only a restricted period in the night. [HL1353]
This is an operational matter for London Underground (LUL), who inform me that it is necessary to place limitations on the type of engineering and related work undertaken where stations are in day to day operational use. It would not be desirable or efficient for heavy engineering work to be carried on through the day in areas which customers are passing through, for example because of noise and dirt associated with the work; and for staff or contractors to carry out work alongside moving escalators could be hazardous in certain circumstances. In practice, however, other work on the escalators is often carried out during the day.Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:Futher to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February (
WA 56–57) on out-of-action tube escalators at Notting Hill Gate Underground station, what advice they have had from the Health & Safety Executive about the dangers of prolonged out-of-action escalators in the event of a need to evacuate the tube station. [HL1352]
London Underground (LUL) inform me that they regularly conduct risk assessments to ensure that the evacuation procedure of stations can be undertaken in a safe and efficient manner. The management of stations with escalators out of action has been discussed with Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate (HMRI) on a number of occasions to ensure that the HMRI are satisfied that this is the best practice available. Furthermore, LUL consult the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority whenever needed to agree specific changes to flows of customers at stations with escalators out of service.
London Underground: Delays To Trains
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February (
WA 57), whether, in view of the potential risk to the health and safety of passengers caused by trains stuck between stations
for lengthy periods of time, they will ask London Underground to keep henceforth records of lengthy delays to trains between stations. [HL1350]
I understand that London Underground are now keeping records of trains held between stations for lengthy periods of time. In addition, they are undertaking a further study of the health and safety risks to passengers on such trains.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 15 February (
WA 57), whether they will seek advice from the Health & Safety Executive about dangers to passengers caused by lengthy delays to trains stuck between stations especially at peak hours in the summer. [HL1351]
Safety on the Underground is a matter of constant communication between government, London Underground (LUL) the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate (HMRI). I am informed by HMRI that they are reviewing London Underground's procedures for handling incidents which involve lengthy delays to trains between stations, and they will recommend whatever actions are appropriate to safeguard the well-being of passengers and LUL personnel. This is consistent with LUL's policy of constant improvement in safety standards. In addition, LUL are implementing a number of recommendations from their inquiry into the Central Line incident last September, and this should reduce the length of time such incidents last. HSE are monitoring LUL's progress in mitigating this risk.
Maritime Safety: Imo "White List"
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the International Maritime Organisation's "White List" of countries deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of the 1995 International Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Convention is satisfactory. [HL1370]
A number of countries have been identified by the Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organisation as having demonstrated, through submission of specified documents, that full and complete effect has been given to the provisions of the STCW Convention, as amended in 1995. That list of countries is unofficially known as the "White List".It serves as a guide, an indicator that signatories to the convention have in place the necessary legislation, training, certification and quality assurance measures to implement STCW 95. However, for service on the registered ships of a country wishing to recognise another country's certificates, it is only a starting point for recognition. STCW 95 requires that countries take any measures necessary to satisfy themselves that the training and certification are of an equivalent standard. No country should simply recognise and endorse another country's certification purely because that country appears on the "White List".On that basis, the "White List" serves its purpose and we have no reason to believe it is not satisfactory.
Foreign Seafarers' Qualifications: Scrutiny
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps the Maritime and Coastguard Agency takes to ensure that the certificates held by foreign seafarers on ships calling at British ports are genuine. [HL1371]
As a signatory to the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) inspects at least 25 per cent of non-UK ships visiting our ports. An important part of any Port State Control inspection is the scrutiny of the qualifications of the ship's personnel to ensure that the qualifications are genuine and valid. Where there is any concern, the holder is questioned to determine the propriety of the qualification. Where appropriate, prosecutions for fraud have been pursued in close co-operation with the police. The MCA inspects UK ships in a similar manner as under Port State Control. No ship is permitted to sail from any UK port without correctly qualified seafarers.
Experience Corps Company Proposal
asked Her Majesty's Government:What plans they have to encourage and enable people aged 50 and over to volunteer or get involved in their communities. [HL1514]
The report of the advisory group of experts, drawn mainly from the voluntary sector and chaired by my noble friend Lady Greengross, whom the Government asked last year to develop a plan to enable those aged 50 and over to become or continue to be involved with their local communities, recommends the establishment of an independent Experience Corps Company to take forward action. The Government warmly welcome this proposal and will be providing funding of £19 million over the next three years to facilitate it. We will be working with Lady Greengross, as the company chairman, to develop an agreed way forward. A copy of the group's report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Pensioners Living Abroad: Pensions Uprating
asked Her Majesty's Government:Why national insurance retirement pensions are uprated for United Kingdom pensioners residing in the countries of the European Economic Area, including the European Union, and are frozen for United Kingdom pensioners residing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. [HL968]
Annual upratings have never been generally paid abroad. The exception is those countries with which we have reciprocal agreements which allow for upratings. These countries are: members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Barbados, Bermuda, the Channel Islands, Cyprus, Israel, Jamaica, Malta, Mauritius, Philippines, Switzerland, Turkey and USA. The Republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are all covered by a reciprocal agreement between the UK and Yugoslavia from 1958.
Asylum Applications By Zimbabwean Nationals
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many applications for asylum have been made in the period November 2000 to March 2001 by Zimbabwe citizens, and how many have been answered. [HL1288]
The information requested regarding applications for asylum from nationals of Zimbabwe for the period of November 2000 to February 2001 is given in the table:
| Month | Asylum Applications(1)(P) |
| November 2000 | 130 |
| December 2000 | 145 |
| January 2001 | 125 |
| February 2001 | 125 |
| Total | 525 |
| 1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5. | |
| P Provisional Figures. | |
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Zimbabwe has been placed on the Special Exercise List; and, if so, when and on what grounds. [HL1289]
The Immigration Service does not operate a Special Exercise List.
Immigration Act Detainees, Lindholme And Haslar Prisons: Telephone Calls And Faxes
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Immigration Act detainees are allowed to receive telephone calls and faxes from their solicitors; if not, why not; and whether they now receive such communication at HM Prison Haslar. [HL1263]
It is Prison Service policy that prisoners may not receive incoming telephone calls and faxes. However, exceptional provision has been made for Immigration Act detainees held in the dedicated centres at Lindholme and Haslar prisons to receive incoming telephone calls and faxes.
Immigration Act Detainees, Belmarsh Prison
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether any Immigration Act detainees are now held (a) in the same wing and (b) in the same cell, as convicted criminals, at HM Prison Belmarsh. [HL1264]
Immigration Act detainees at Belmarsh prison are neither held on the same wing as convicted prisoners nor in the same cell. Detainees and unconvicted prisoners may be held on the same wing but not in the same cell.
Winson Green Prison: Action On Chief Inspector's Report
asked Her Majesty's Government:What action they propose to take in response to the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on conditions at Winson Green Prison, Birmingham. [HL1265]
In accordance with the protocol agreed between Ministers, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and the Prison Service, an action plan will be produced within 30 working days of its publication. This will address all the report's recommendations, but some of the key developments already in hand are as follows.
A new staff attendance system planned to come into effect next month should provide a considerable increase in out-of-cell hours. Extra education spaces will be available following the conversion of additional classrooms. A first night centre is being set up. To tackle the problems caused by overcrowding, the roll was reduced to 1,000 from November 2000, and is planned to reduce further to 800 by 1 April 2001.
Birmingham prison will be one of the first wave of pilot sites for the development of National Health Service funded "in-reach" teams to support prison healthcare staff in looking after seriously mentally ill prisoners.
A senior healthcare manager has been appointed jointly by the Prison Service and the local health authority and a new nurse manager is being seconded from the NHS to improve nursing leadership in the prison.
A major redevelopment project is planned for Birmingham prison, which will include two new houseblocks, a new healthcare centre, workshop and sports hall. This will provide safe and secure accommodation for prisoners as well as providing improved regime facilities. The proposed investment is in excess of £50 million, although this is still awaiting Treasury approval. If the necessary funding is secured, it is anticipated that the project will be completed during 2004. In the meantime, an interim refurbishment programme to improve the environment in the healthcare centre has been completed, and the reception area is also being redecorated.
British Citizenship Application Procedures
asked Her Majesty's Government:What plans they have to change the procedures for dealing with applications for British citizenship. [HL1513]
During April 2001, the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will devote some of its resources to starting applications for British citizenship on receipt. All cases, at both ends of the queue for consideration, will be considered using new procedures and working practices. New applicants will be asked to supply supporting documentation at the time of application and to respond more quickly to requests for further information than has previously been the case. The aim of these changes is to eliminate the current backlog of nationality applications by attacking it from both ends. This approach has been successfully used elsewhere in IND—for example, in the production of travel documents.ICD will have achieved its target of 91,000 decisions by the end of March 2001, which is more than twice the total for 1997. By the end of February 2001, the average waiting time for all types of citizenship applications had fallen to exactly 12 months, as compared with nearly 20 months at the same time last year. These improvements flow from significantly increased investment in the system and the new service delivery culture now becoming established in the ICD.Because of these improvements, ICD is now in a position to deal with the remaining backlog of work from both ends, cutting out unnecessary handling. This approach has proved very successful in other parts of IND's work. More resources will continue to be devoted to those applications that have been waiting longest, but the ICD's intention is to reduce the waiting time for all applications to an average of six months by April 2002 and to three months by April 2004.
Special Educational Needs Children: Inclusion Costs And Resources
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their estimate of the total number of children with statements of special educational needs who will require places in mainstream schools under the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill in each of the next five years; and how many mainstream schools will be involved in accepting such pupils; and [HL1400]What savings they expect in each of the next five years as a result of the closure of special schools and the reduction in the size of special schools following the transfer of more children with special educational needs and disabilities from special schools to mainstream schools as required by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill; and whether these savings will be used to help pay for additional support for those children in mainstream schools. [HL1405]
The Government want an education service to offer excellence and choice for all. The SEN and Disability Bill does not require the closure of special schools. The Bill strengthens the right to a mainstream place for children who have statements. It does not make it harder for parents whose children have statements to gain a place for them in a special school. A parent's right to express a preference for a maintained special school or to make representations to have a non-maintained school named in their child's statement is being fully maintained.There is a continuing and vital role for special schools. The Government want all special schools to become outward-looking centres of excellence working in partnership with mainstream schools. The proportion of pupils in special schools fell from 1.3 per cent in 1991 to 1.2 per cent in 1995 but has remained constant in each of the last six years.Inclusion is not about cost cutting. Research suggests that in time inclusion can provide savings. The Government believe that any such saving should be used to benefit all pupils, including those with learning difficulties or disabilities. Significant resources have been made available to help support the inclusion of children with special educational needs or disabilities. The SEN standards fund will rise from £55 million in 2000–01 to £82 million from April. In addition, £220 million is being provided over the next three years from April via the School Access Initiative to help schools become more accessible.
asked Her Majesty' Government:What existing services they suggest local education authorities should cut back to pay for any additional expenditure on support services for special educational needs and disabled pupils in mainstream schools as a result of the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill: and [HL1403]What existing services they suggest that schools should cut back, in order to be able to pay for any additional expenditure (capital or recurrent) for which the school will become liable out of its existing budget as a result of the provisions of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. [HL1404]
There is no need for authorities to cut existing services, as substantial extra resources are being provided.The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill will advance civil rights for disabled people in education and help to improve provision for all children with special educational needs.We are making significant resources available to support the implementation of the Bill. In particular, next year (2001–02) we will make £82 million of supported expenditure available through Standards Fund, for special educational needs. This will be available for training for staff of pupils with special educational needs, improvements in speech and language therapy provision for children with communication difficulties, the provision of information and advice to parents and the greater inclusion of children with SEN in the mainstream. We are also making available £220 million between 2001 and 2004, under the Schools Access Initiative, to help schools improve both access to premises and the curriculum for pupils with SEN and disabilities.In addition, as a result of the March budget announcement there will be over £800 million increase in education spending in England over the next three years. Funding per pupil in 2001–02 will now he over £200 higher in real terms than in 2000–01. Additional direct funding to schools over and above normal funding will mean that a typical primary school will get an extra £24,000 next year, while a typical secondary will receive an extra £70,000.The Government published Explanatory Notes and a Regulatory Impact Assessment with the Bill which estimated the effect of the Bill on public sector finances and the private and voluntary sectors respectively. The documents estimated that the costs of the provisions to local education authorities and schools would be relatively minor given the large amount of funding already made available for special educational needs provision and disability access. The duties to plan to increase the accesssibility of schools will require schools and local education authorities to plan within the context of the resourses available to them.Greater inclusion can require quite modest changes or changes to practices that are cost free. Inclusion will become a reality only where there is an attitudinal change, and that does not necessarily cost money.We do not believe that there will be a reduction in provision for pupils with special educational needs provided by LEAs or a reduction in services provided by schools as a result of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill.
Afghanistan: Humanitarian Assistance
asked Her Majesty's Government:What response they are making to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. [HL1478]
Afghanistan is currently suffering from its worst drought in 30 years. This, combined with continuing conflict and the absence of significant economic recovery, has led to a dramatic deterioration in the humanitarian situation. The UN indicates that about 12 million people (over half the country's population) have been affected by the drought; 3–4 million of them seriously. One million people are thought to be at risk of famine. Neighbouring countries are becoming increasingly unreceptive to population flows from Afghanistan and there have been reports of border closures over recent months.We have continued to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan where this can be done effectively. This financial year, we have provided some £10.5 million through UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs. As well as drought relief assistance, this includes a longer-term programme of humanitarian assistance to the Afghan population, both in Afghanistan itself and to Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. We intend to continue with this programme in the coming year, and stand ready to respond to additional needs as required.We have also reviewed our policy of not financing NGO activities that involved UK nationals, because of the personal security risks. There have been no serious security incidents involving expatriates for some time. With this in mind, we have decided to consider funding on a case by case basis for NGOs that send UK nationals into the country. As before, the appraisal of proposals will continue to include an assessment of the agency's personnel security arrangements. Only if these arrangements are judged to be appropriate would the agency be eligible for funding.
Bse
asked Her Majesty's Government:If they will publish the most recent figures for confirmed BSE cases broken down by year of birth. [HL1480]
The position in Great Britain as at 26 March 2001 was as follows:
| Year of birth | Total number of confirmed cases |
| 1974 | 1 |
| 1975 | 0 |
| 1976 | 2 |
| 1977 | 10 |
| 1978 | 6 |
| 1979 | 41 |
| 1980 | 101 |
| 1981 | 261 |
| 1982 | 1,393 |
| 1983 | 4,462 |
| 1984 | 8,067 |
| 1985 | 11,065 |
| 1986 | 19,733 |
| 1987 | 36,876 |
| 1988 | 22,192 |
| 1989 | 12,652 |
| 1990 | 5,647 |
| 1991 | 4,591 |
| 1992 | 3,201 |
| 1993 | 2,454 |
| 1994 | 1,351 |
| 1995 | 379 |
| 1996 | 5* |
| Unknown | 43,322 |
| Total | 177,812 |
* A fourth case of BSE in an animal born in 1996 was confirmed on 9 February. The animal was born in January 1996, before the feed ban is considered to have been fully effective.
A fifth case of BSE in an animal born in 1996 was confirmed on 22 March. The animal was born in May 1996, before the feed ban is considered to have been fully effective.
The unknown dates of birth relate to cattle born before 1 July 1996, when it became mandatory for cattle to have passports which show their date of birth. In some cases it is not possible to confirm the date of birth of these animals from farm records.