---

Child Support Agency

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time is that the Child Support Agency has taken to produce a substantive reply to correspondence in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [59701]

(2) what steps have been taken to guarantee a response from the Child Support Agency to a correspondent within five working days. [59702]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 17 June 2002:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.

You ask two questions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

what the average time the Child Support Agency has taken to produce a substantive reply to correspondence in the last 12 months for which figures are available is; and

what steps have been taken to guarantee a response from the Child Support Agency to a correspondent within five working days.

I am sorry but information is not gathered in the format you have requested.

The 2001/2002 target for customer correspondence was to reply to 70% of correspondence within 10 days. In the event 82% of correspondence was replied to within 10 days.

The Child Support Reform Programme is intended to create a step improvement in the level of service provided to customers. This is a large undertaking and its implementation will be the prime focus of the Agency in the coming year. Against that background we are not, in the short term, looking to improve the timeliness of our responses to correspondence.

I hope this is helpful.

Press Releases

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59470]

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The information is as follows.

	Number
January	22
February	32
March	33
April	22
May 1 to date	27

18 Jun 2002 : Column 292W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Computers

Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are (a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE directive. [60733]

Mr. MacShane: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State (Energy) at the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002, Official Report, column 1266W.

Departmental Expenditure Limit

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61019]

Mr. MacShane: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Resource DEL (departmental expenditure limit) for 2002–03 is £1,318,597,000. Due to pay negotiations we are unable to say how much of that we expect to be attributed to staff costs. Comparative provisional outturn figures for 2001–02 show a Resource DEL of £1,268,738,000, of which £316,811,000 or 24.97 per cent. represents the provisional outturn for staff costs. The figure for staff costs includes the cost of locally engaged staff overseas.

Advertising Campaigns

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60914]

Mr. MacShane: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 199W.

We have no press and advertising campaigns planned for the United Kingdom in 2002–03. We intend to print two public information leaflets on Britain and the European Union at a total cost of approximately £4,000.

Performance Targets

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what has been the (a) cost

18 Jun 2002 : Column 293W

and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced; [60886]

(2) what the (a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61633]

Mr. MacShane: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes performance against its targets, including on value for money and the resources it has used in its departmental report.

BAE Systems

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings his Department has had with representatives of BAE Systems since June 2001. [62263]

Mr. MacShane: Officials and Ministers at the FCO frequently meet representatives of BAES and other British businesses with major overseas interests.

Kashmir

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of UK citizens involved in terrorist groups in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [61845]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: This country should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism overseas. The Terrorism Act 2000 (which entered into force in February 2001) is designed to help the UK police and courts take effective action against those who seek to plan, carry out or support terrorism from or in the UK.

We have proscribed three Kashmiri terrorist groups. Membership of these groups and support for their activities are criminal offences in the United Kingdom and we will continue to take action to prevent these groups from fund-raising or recruiting here.

Chemical Weapons

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002, Official Report, column 261W, on the OPCW, if he will make a statement on the financial and administrative management differences referred to. [62196]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We understood the main financial and administrative differences to be:

(a) The failure of the OPCW Secretariat to implement the Financial Regulations in 2000, leading to expenditure exceeding income by £2.5 million.

(b) Presentation by the Secretariat of incomplete and occasionally inaccurate information on the financial situation in 2001.

(c) The drastic cuts in the operational programme intended to resolve the 2001 financial situation, before the scale of the problem was clear and the options evaluated.

18 Jun 2002 : Column 294W

(d) Presentation of unrealistic budgetary proposals, over a number of years, that required extensive revision.

(e) The handling of a staff grading review which led to legal action at the ILO Administrative Tribunal, and the handling of action subsequent to the ILO judgment.

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) of 21 May 2002, Official Report, columns 261–62W, on the OPCW, if he will list the evident shortcomings referred to. [62197]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The shortcomings relate to the failure to comply with the OPCW financial regulations. These regulations require the Director-General to "prudently manage appropriations . . . to ensure that expenditures can be kept within funds available". Expenditure in 2000 exceeded income by £2.5 million. The OPCW external auditor's report on the 2000 financial statements confirmed that these provisions had not been complied with and recommended corrective action. The external auditor also drew attention to the failure to comply with regulations governing transfers of funds between appropriations, and recommended action to minimise excessive use of transfers.

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 603W, if he will make a statement on (a) the views expressed by the members of the OPCW represented on the Executive Council, and (b) the views expressed by the UK at that time. [61989]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: A significant number of the members of the Executive Council expressed the view that they had lost confidence in the Director-General. As a result, the UK concluded that it would be in the best interests of the OPCW and the Chemical Weapons Convention if the Director-General were to step down voluntarily to make way for someone who could enjoy the full confidence of all the members of the organisation. The Director-General was informed of the UK's position prior to the vote of no confidence at the Executive Council meeting in March.

---