---

8 Sept 2004 : Column 1244W—continued

Freedom of Information

Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action he is taking in response to the comments made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding delays by his Department in responding to complaints under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information in her review of departmental performance against requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding published on 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [186611]

Mr. Alexander: The Government take any delays in responding to complaints under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information seriously.

The Government regret that delays do unavoidably occur in a minority of complex cases. However, the Ombudsman's review of the first nine months of the Memorandum of Understanding (September 2003 to May 2004) shows that in most cases the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding were met.

In all cases, Departments endeavour to ensure that the time limit of three weeks for Departments to respond to a "statement of complaint" from the Ombudsman is met. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, Departments aim to enter into dialogue with the investigating officer should there be any difficulty in replying by the date set by the Ombudsman.
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1245W
 

PFI/PPP Contracts

Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many contracts the Cabinet Office had with (a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186612]

Mr. Alexander: The Department has not entered into any such contracts with any of these companies.

Press Officers

Mr. Cameron: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much was spent by his Office on press officers, broken down by grade, in (a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [185241]

Mr. Alexander [holding answer 19 July 2004]: Financial and human resource information for periods, prior to, and including 1996–97 is not held on the Cabinet Office's current databases. Hence, information for 1996–97 could be provided in the manner requested only at disproportionate cost. However, information about the number of press officers working in Cabinet Office press office during this period is available in Appendix 11 to PASC—Sixth Report.

Press office provides a service to the Minister for the Cabinet Office; Minister without Portfolio; Leader and Deputy Leader of the Commons; Leader of the Lords; Cabinet Secretary; Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and the Permanent Secretary Government Communications. It is also responsible for supporting the Managing Director of the Cabinet Office and the Heads of Management Units in the Cabinet Office.

The last year for which information is available is 2003–04. At January 2004 the Cabinet Office Press Office had the following press officer posts:

a full-time head of news post—SCSI;

two full-time chief press officer posts—G7;

two full-time senior press officer posts—TIS3/SIO;

a senior press officer—TIS3/SIO who spent 50 per cent. of her time on press office duties;

three full-time press officers—TIS2/IO and B2.

Some of these posts remained vacant for a large part of 2003–04. The total salary costs, including employer contributions and overtime, for the above posts in the 2003–04 financial year was £436,433.00. These figures are subject to final audit by the National Audit Office (NAO). In order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned it would be inappropriate to break down the cost by grade.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Metropolitan Police (Horse Dung)

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the estimated amount in tonnes is of horse excrement deposited by police horses belonging to the London
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1246W
 
Metropolitan Police on public byways and spaces in London in the last year for which figures are available; [187289]

(2) what the estimated cost to local authorities was of collecting excrement from police horses belonging to the London Metropolitan Police from public byways and spaces in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by local authority; [187290]

(3) what (a) tonnage and (b) percentage of excrement produced by horses belonging to the Metropolitan Police was recycled in the form of manure or other compost in the last year for which figures are available; [187291]

(4) what obligations there are on the Metropolitan Police to clean up excrement left by its horses on public byways and spaces in London. [187292]

Alun Michael: There are no figures available for the amount of horse manure excreted by horses belonging to the Metropolitan Police in London, the cost to local authorities for cleaning up horse excrement, nor for the amount of excrement that authorities have collected.

The Metropolitan Police have no obligation to clear up horse excrement.

Advertising

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department on (a) advertising and (b) public relations consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) in the latest year for which figures are available. [186014]

Alun Michael: The Department does not maintain separate records of its expenditure for advertising and promotional literature. The expenditure for publicity by Defra's Communications Directorate, includes marketing, advertising, publications, events, shows and direct mailings, and is recorded for the financial years since Defra's creation in June 2001 as follows:

	£ million
2001–02	6.6
2002–03	4.7
2003–04	2.5

This includes communications on a wide range of matters, much of it necessary or beneficial to the public and the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

Figures on expenditure on public relations consultants by all sections of Defra are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There has been no expenditure on public relations consultancy by the Defra's Communications Directorate since the Department was set up. Some firms which include public relations activities among the range of services they provide to clients have been employed by some sections of Defra, but not primarily for that purpose.
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1247W
 

Departmental Costs

Richard Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of running the Department's canteen facilities was in (a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184378]

Alun Michael: Defra came into being in June 2001. From information held centrally, the cost of running the Department's canteen facilities in financial year 2001–02 was £398,058 and in financial year 2003–04 the cost was £443,025.

Richard Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by her Department on public relations consultants in (a) 1996–97 and (b) in the last year for which figures are available. [184381]

Alun Michael: Defra was formed in June 2001. Figures on expenditure on public relations consultants by all sections of Defra are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There has been no expenditure on public relations consultancy by the Defra's Communications Directorate since the Department was set up. Some firms which include public relations activities among the range of services they provide to clients have been employed by some sections of Defra, but not primarily for that purpose.

Hunting

Paddy Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the Hunting Bill. [188252]

Alun Michael: The Government intends to fulfil its manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to deal with the issue of hunting with dogs.

Some opponents of hunting want this issue to be dealt with as a matter of great urgency, while supporters of hunting want nothing to change and many other people regard it as being less important than many other policies.

The Government has made it clear that the issue does not have as high a priority as issues like jobs and schools and hospitals and transport, to name a few. But it is an issue that has absorbed an enormous amount of valuable Parliamentary time, over several years, and before the last election we acknowledged that it was time to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.

The Government has made efforts to find a constructive way forward, based on the evidence, through the Burns Committee Report and my own work which culminated in public hearings in Portcullis House in 2002. The proposals put to the House last year would have banned hunting except where a particular activity could be proved—to the satisfaction of an independent tribunal—to be necessary for pest control and to involve less suffering than available alternatives. The House decided by a substantial majority on a free vote to go further and require a complete ban apart from a few very restricted statutory exceptions.
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1248W
 

The Other Place then considered the Bill but failed to return it to this House before the end of the Session last November. That was disappointing and the only way the Government can be sure to fulfil its manifesto commitment is now to reintroduce the Bill in the form it left this House last year. I am therefore giving notice of the Bill's re-introduction in this House.

It will be a matter for this House to decide, but the Government believes that the provisions of the Parliament Acts will be available if an unaltered Bill is sent to the Other Place.

In addition to the Bill, I shall ask the House to agree a motion to commence the Bill's provisions in relation to hunting, but not hare-coursing events, two years after its enactment. Special procedures exist under the Parliament Act 1911 for changes to be made if agreed to by both Houses. This period will give those involved in hunting more than adequate time to cease the activities which are to be banned, for humane arrangements like the dispersal or re-homing of dogs, and for re-focusing any business activities on alternatives like drag-hunting or disposal of fallen stock if they wish to do so.

These welfare considerations do not apply to hare coursing events. Violence and intimidation associated with illegal coursing events is a real and pressing problem in many areas of the countryside today. We have received many representations asking us to take firm and speedy action to enable the police to tackle these associated evils. That can only be done if the nature of the relevant offences is changed from that of trespassing to the activity of hare-coursing itself, which is a clear provision of the Bill. There can be no justification for delaying further in giving the police the powers they need to crack down on the criminals involved. So the offences in the Bill banning hare-coursing events should continue to come into force three months after the Bill is passed.

The Government has condemned threats of illegal action by some supporters of hunting and believes that most people involved are law-abiding people who are prepared to respect the will of Parliament. Extra time for implementation will make it even clearer that illegal actions and threats or intimidation are totally unjustified. If people wish to continue their opposition to legislation, they have the option of the ballot box through which to express their views.

Animal welfare is also a major consideration for the Government—in terms of dogs and horses as well as the wild animals which are hunted. Dogs used for hunting are normally shot when they are no longer needed but the extra time for implementation will mean that there is even less reason for any suffering to be caused to them because of the ban. The RSPCA has offered to help with re-homing hounds—an offer for which I am very grateful—based on its experience of re-homing a considerable number of greyhounds each year. Drag-hunting offers alternative activities for those who have to give up hunting. And the horse industry in this country is buoyant, with increasing activity in a variety of leisure and sporting activities.
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1249W
 

As has consistently been the case, right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House will have a free vote on the Hunting Bill. That free vote will apply to Ministers and Whips as well as to back-benchers. While this legislation is not a Government priority, it is an issue on which hon. Members have expressed strong and consistent views over many years.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will address the handling of the Bill in the Business Statement.

---