|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Dismore: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2006, Official Report, columns 291-92W, on House mail services, if the Commission will consider negotiating with Royal Mail a bulk purchase or business mail discount for hon. Members post dispatched from the House, and for use by hon. Members who are prepared to bring their constituency post to the House for posting; and if he will make a statement. 
Nick Harvey: In order for House mail to qualify for bulk purchase or business mail discounts, the mail dispatch would at a minimum have to be consolidated and sorted into postcoded bundles; carry typed addresses only; be fully postcoded; have all letters, flats and packages separated and consolidated into postcode area; and be posted before 3 pm each day, rather than the current cut-off of 7 pm each day. These conditions are incompatible with the working practices of individual Members.
Mr. Dismore: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2006, Official Report, columns 291-92W, on stationery supplies, if the Commission will make arrangements for hon. Members to obtain stationery of a less high quality and at a lower price than that presently provided; if the Commission will consider negotiating a stationery contract which does not rely on next day delivery and encourages hon. Members to order stationery well in advance but which maintains emergency supply arrangements; and if he will make a statement. 
Nick Harvey: The House moved to next day delivery of stationery in 1997 to reduce the requirement for individual stockholding that led to over ordering, wastage and eventually obsolete stationery. This is a service which many Members and their staff welcome, particularly those with constituency offices in remote locations.
The present stationery range includes environmentally friendly paper in particular sizes and weights so that it can be used in a range of printers. The addition of lower quality paper would be unlikely to result in cost savings, given the consequent reduction in the volume of each type of paper ordered.
Mr. Amess: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons
Commission, if he will list the parliamentary publications produced by the Vote Office Print Unit in each of the last six months for which information is available; what his estimate is of the savings to the House by the use of the Vote Office Print Unit during this period to produce publications previously printed by other sources; and if he will make a statement. 
Nick Harvey: Parliamentary publications in all the following categories were produced or reprinted by the Print Services Unit in each of the last six months: House of Commons and House of Lords Bills and Explanatory Notes; House of Commons and House of Lords Debates; Standing Committee Debates (Brown Covers); House of Commons Papers; Select Committee transcripts of evidence. In total 1,491 titles were printed and 27,309 copies produced. The estimated savings by the use of the Print Services Unit during this period to print items previously printed by other sources is £103,650.
Mr. Amess: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many staff are employed by the Vote Office Print Unit, broken down by grade; if the Commission will increase the number of staff in the Unit; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the average printing costs of the Vote Bundle per printed page were during the 2005-06 financial year; and if he will make a statement. 
Nick Harvey: The average printing costs of the Vote Bundle per originated printed page during financial year 2005-06 were £69.52. This represents a 6 per cent. reduction from the costs for financial year 2004-05, which were supplied to the hon. Member in the written answer I gave him on 12 July 2005, Official Report, column 859W.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received during each of the last six months from members of the public about the Connexions programme; how many (a) supported and (b) opposed the programme; and if he will make a statement. 
The Prime Minister: Implementation of the Gleneagles Plan of Action is being overseen by the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development. The second ministerial meeting of the Dialogue, involving 20 countries with significant energy needs, will be held in Mexico in October. This will further explore the key themes of development and transfer of technology, market mechanisms and economics of climate change and adaptation identified at the first ministerial meeting in London last November. The Gleneagles Dialogue will report back to G8 leaders under Japan's Chairmanship of the G8 in 2008.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister what (a) land and (b) property his Department (i) leases and (ii) leased in (A) 1979, (B) 1983, (C) 1987, (D) 1992 and (E) 1997 in (1) the Southend, West constituency, (2) Essex, (3) Hertfordshire and (4) the Metropolitan Police area of London. 
The Prime Minister: For these purposes my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I have therefore asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Hilary Armstrong) to reply. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister what the (a) name and (b) location is of each official ministerial residence which is in his gift; which official residences were in the gift of the Prime Minister in (i) 1976, (ii) 1978, (iii) 1979, (iv) 1983, (v) 1987, (vi) 1992 and (vii) each year between 1993 and 2004; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister to which Ministers the official residences in his gift are allocated; to which Ministers they were allocated in January 2006; and if he will make a statement. 
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) and Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 2 December 2005, Official Report, column 816W and the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 16 March 2006, Official Report, column 2394W.
David Simpson: To ask the Prime Minister how much has been paid in (a) salary, (b) travelling expenses, (c) subsistence allowance and (d) removal expenses to special advisers in his Office in each of the last five years. 
The Prime Minister: Since 2003, the Government have published on an annual basis the names and overall cost of special advisers, and the number in each pay band. For information relating to the last financial year I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I made on 21 July 2005, Official Report, columns 158-61WS. Information on special advisers for this financial year is currently being collected and will be published in the normal way when it is ready.
Dr. Gibson: To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department or Agency employs security staff who protect Ministers; how many are employed; what the cost was in 2005-06; and what criteria are used to decide (a) which hon. Members are given protection and (b) for how long protection is provided after the individual leaves office. 
The Prime Minister: In the joint statement following my meeting with President Yudhoyono on 30 March 2006 I expressed the UK's support for dialogue to settle internal differences on Papua. I also refer my
right hon. Friend to the Press Conference I held with President Yudhoyono. A transcript of this is available on the Number 10 website.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000; and what recent representations he has received about the operation of this Act. 
The Solicitor-General: None. The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000 came into effect on 1 October 2000 and established the remit for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate which is an independent statutory body reporting to the Attorney- General. The legislation has operated satisfactorily. However, the Police and Justice Bill presently being considered by Parliament transfers the functions of the Inspectorate to a Justice, Community Safety and Custody Inspectorate in line with Government policy for rationalising the inspection arrangements of public services.
Where counselling is received, crown prosecutors should review any notes made as these may contain information that may impact upon the decision to prosecute. Wherever possible, prosecutors will safeguard the confidentiality of counselling sessions. However, the notes may contain a statement made by the complainant that would be valuable evidence of the first complaint of the abuse. Alternatively, the notes might contain information that must be disclosed to the defence because it either undermines the prosecution case or assists the case for the defence.
The Crown Prosecution Service, Home Office and the Department of Health have jointly issued two guidance booklets, which aim to assist therapists, including counsellors, in making decisions about therapeutic help for witnesses prior to a criminal trial. These appear at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/pretria1adult.pdf; http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/therapychild.pdf.
Geraldine Smith: To ask the Solicitor-General what meetings officials in the Law Officers' Departments have had with representatives of the public relations company Portland PR; what contracts Portland PR has
with his Department and agencies for which he has responsibility; and what the nature of the contract is in each case. 
The Solicitor-General: The Departments for which I am responsible do not maintain central lists of such meetings. Civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and business delivery. All such meetings are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the civil service code and guidance to civil servants on contacts with lobbyists and people outside Government.
Des Browne: I had a number of discussions with a range of interlocutors in southern Iraq, including senior British officers and Iraqi officials. Our discussions covered the security situation, governance in the Multi National Division (South East) area and economic reconstruction.
15. David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the effect of human rights legislation on the ability of members of the UK armed services to respond to incidents on active duty in Iraq with due regard to their own safety. 
Des Browne: British military personnel deployed on operations overseas who come under attack are lawfully entitled to defend themselves including, where necessary, by the use of lethal force. The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 has not affected this position.
Des Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, (David Taylor) and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, (Andrew Selous).
Des Browne: There has been no inquiry into militia numbers. However, militias are something we routinely monitor. Assessments suggest that there are up to
10,000 people with various affiliations to the Badr organisation in southern Iraq.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers injured in Iraq since March 2003 have sustained a (a) severe, (b) moderate and (c) mild traumatic brain injury as a result of (i) being wounded in action and (ii) a vehicle or other accident. 
Des Browne: The best centrally available records do not allow us to specify types of injury, such as head injury, for UK personnel who have served on Operation Telic. Nor do they separately identify the number of UK personnel injured in vehicle related or other accidents. However, information on those wounded in Iraq can be obtained on the MOD website at www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attacks on multi-national forces were recorded in (a) Al Basrah, (b) Al Muthanna, (c) Dhi Qar and (d) Maysan province in Iraq in (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March and (iv) April 2006. 
|Al Muthanna||Basrah||Dhi Qar||Maysan|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|