---

12 May 2004 : Column 343W—continued

Two Tree Island

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which councils and bodies are responsible for monitoring pollution on Two Tree Island in the constituencies of Castle Point and Southend West; [170825]

(2) what assessment she has made of the risk to children on Two Tree Island of the accidental ingestion of dust or soil; [171527]

(3) what the cost was of the Halcrow Report into Two Tree Island; and what steps have been taken to publicise the report's conclusions; [171528]

(4) whether it is safe for the public to consume (a) vegetables and (b) fruit grown on Two Tree Island; [171529]

(5) what estimate she has made of the cost of stopping the old Two Tree Island waste dump polluting the environment; [170829]

(6) what assessment she has made of the potential and actual impact on (a) bird life, (b) marine life and (c) mammals of the pollutants within and seeping from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170830]

(7) which areas of land on Two Tree Island may be subject to contamination from leakage from (a) old landfill and (b) old sewage works; [171530]

(8) when repair work to Two Tree Island's sea wall was first identified as necessary; and when that work will commence; [171531]

(9) if she will give advice to (a) walkers and (b) bathers regarding the pollutants in and seeping from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170831]

(10) if she will list the health hazards to (a) walkers and (b) bathers around and on Canvey Island and Two Tree Island resulting from pollutants from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170832]

(11) if she will list the toxic substances (a) within and (b) seeping into the Thames and surrounding areas from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; and if she will make a statement; [170833]
 
12 May 2004 : Column 344W
 

(12) what assessment she has made of the extent of leakage of pollutants from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170834]

(13) if she will make a statement on the Halcrow Report into environmental problems associated with Two Tree Island in the Castle Point constituency; [170835]

(14) what investigations have been undertaken by the Environment Agency into leachate seeping into the Thames from Two Tree Island. [171532]

Mr. Morley: The local authorities, that is Southend borough council and Castle Point borough council, are responsible for preventing pollution from this landfill site as it was closed before 1990. In this case, the local authority is also the landowner and is responsible for the sea defences.

I understand that Southend borough council commissioned a consultant, Halcrow, in 2001 to assess the risks associated with the sea defence failure at Two Tree Island and to prepare a management strategy. Following wide consultation with relevant bodies, including the Environment Agency, a report was produced that considered the options. The local authorities involved are considering action in light of the recommendations made in the report.

Questions about the pollution risks and the assessment of any health impacts associated with this landfill site are a matter for the local authorities.

Warm Front

Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in South Ribble have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [171278]

Mr. Morley: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 1,800 households in South Ribble received assistance from the Scheme.

Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [170881]

Mr. Morley: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 3,600 households in Oldham West and Royton received assistance from the Scheme.

Water Report

Joyce Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department intends to hold a public consultation on the recommendations of the Report commissioned by her Department from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the future structure of the Consumer Council on Water and the future of WaterVoice organisations. [169478]

 
12 May 2004 : Column 345W
 

Mr. Morley: A wide range of groups were consulted by PricewaterhouseCoopers during their study of the organisational and regional structure of the Consumer Council for Water, including water industry representatives, consumer organisations, and WaterVoice members and staff.

The Government do not intend to carry out a further consultation. The priority now is to work towards a successful establishment of the Consumer Council for Water in October 2005 based on the consultants' report and to seek to minimise the uncertainties for WaterVoice and its staff.

Joyce Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to her Department has been of commissioning the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the structure of the Consumer Council on Water and the future of WaterVoice organisations. [169479]

Mr. Morley: The PricewaterhouseCoopers study of the organisational and regional structure of the Consumer Council for Water cost £93,261.41.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Asylum Processing

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets are in place for the length of time taken to process asylum claims; when these targets were introduced; and which Minister in his Department approved the setting of these targets. [166557]

Mr. Browne: The principal target for processing asylum claims made in 2003–04 is to decide and serve 75 per cent. within two months. This was an element of target 7 of the Home Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) covering the period 2003–04 to 2005–06. The PSA targets were agreed between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and formed the basis for the Home Office's funding settlement for SR2002.

The technical notes were published on 25 March 2003, and this was announced by Written Ministerial Statement on 25 March 2004, Official Report, column 55WS, by the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Elliot Morley). The notes are held on the Home Office website and can be accessed at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/aims/index.html. The relevant section is on p20. Latest published performance figures against this target indicate that 80 per cent. of applications, received between April and September 2003, were decided and served within two months.

Body Armour

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of ballistic protection provided by (a) HG1 and (b) HG1A body armour. [172356]

 
12 May 2004 : Column 346W
 

Caroline Flint [holding answer 11 May 2004]: HG1 and HG1A are body armour protection levels defined in a Home Office body armour standard. Both HG1 and HG1A afford the same ballistic protection. They both provide protection against standard ammunition fired from short-barrelled handguns. In the case of HG1A a back face deformation of the armour to a maximum depth of 44mm is allowed and in the case of HG1 this maximum deformation is reduced to 25mm. The back face deformation is a measure of the trauma that would be inflicted.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was informed (a) that Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. had changed the specification of its KCW223 model of body armour and (b) that the body armour used by some police forces did not meet the protective HG1/KR2 classification of the original tender. [172357]

Caroline Flint [holding answer 11 May 2004]: Highmark did not change the specification of the armour. In mid 2001 it incorporated a material that had been cured in a different way. They did not inform the Home Office of this change. It has now been established that the fully cured material affords a lower ballistic trauma protection level than the partially cured material. The Home Office was informed of the problem in February 2004 and established its extent in March 2004. All affected forces have been told what action they should take, and the manufacturers are providing upgrade packs to return the armour to the specified protection level.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (a) which police forces and (b) how many police officers are using body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. that does not meet the protective HG1/KR2 specification of the original tender. [172358]

Caroline Flint [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The police forces in England and Wales using KCW223 model of body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. are Avon and Somerset constabulary, Cheshire constabulary, Cumbria constabulary, Devon and Cornwall constabulary, Dorset police, Durham constabulary, Greater Manchester police, Hampshire Constabulary, Lancashire constabulary, Leicestershire constabulary, North Wales police, South Wales police, West Midlands police and West Yorkshire police. 30,000 models of this armour have been supplied and the manufacturers are supplying upgrade packs to return the armour to its original HG1/KR2 level (where required).

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long police forces have been using body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. that does not meet the protective HG1/KR2 specification of the original tender. [172359]

Caroline Flint [holding answer 11 May 2004]: In mid 2001, Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. started using a material that makes up part of the construction of the armour model KCW223 which was supplied to police forces. This material had been cured in a different way to material previously used. This resulted in the armour in having a reduced ballistic (trauma) protection level in
 
12 May 2004 : Column 347W
 
terms of the HG1/A specification and a slightly reduced stab protection level that placed it just below the KR2 level in some carriers and just above KR2 in others.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long police forces were using HG1A body armour before it was approved by his Department; and what action his Department is taking to ensure that police forces are issued with the certification of body armour they specify at tender. [172360]

Caroline Flint [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) of the Home Office produces a body armour standard. HG1A is a body armour protection level, which was introduced in early 2002. PSDB approved test houses test body armour to the current PSDB standards and the results are published in the Manual of Ballistic and Stab Resistant Body Armour maintained by PSDB. When body armour is tested at a PSDB test house the manufacturer is asked to provide a Declaration of Construction that details the material used in the manufacture of the armour along with a detailed description of the construction of the armour. Any model of armour tested is assigned an identification number that uniquely identifies it and the test sample is retained by PSDB. This procedure is designed to ensure that all armour bearing a particular model number that has met a PSDB defined protection level, which is subsequently supplied by the manufacturer, is of the same construction as the original test armour.

---