To achieve overall customer satisfaction of 90 per cent.
To enable prompt issue of correct bills by local authorities through clearance of rating reports within an average of 12 working days and council tax reports within an average of 14 working days in England and 12 working days in Wales.
To enable prompt issue of tax assessments by clearing all HMRC initial appraisal cases for inheritance tax within an average of eight days and for capital gains tax within an average of 11 days.
To contain reductions in the 2005 rating lists to a maximum of 4.2 per cent. of the total compiled list-rateable value, over the entire life of the lists.
To ensure that 96 per cent. of new council tax bandings are right first time.
To improve overall value for money on local taxation work by 3 per cent. per annum.
To improve value for money on inheritance tax work for HMRC by 5 per cent.
All staff to have the core skills and competencies for their role within six months of taking up a post.
The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls): I announced in a statement to the House on 2 April the establishment in interim form of the new independent regulator of qualifications and tests, known as Ofqual. In the Governments Draft Legislative Programme published yesterday (Cm 7372) we announced that we intend to legislate to establish the regulator as part of an Education and Skills Bill in the 2008-09 session. I am today publishing an exchange of letters with Kathleen Tattersall OBE, the chair of Ofqual, prior to the launch event for Ofqual tomorrow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Parmjit Dhanda): The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to set and meet a timetable for the majority of planning cases which are to be decided by her (as opposed to being decided by a planning inspector) and to make a report to Parliament each year on performance. This is intended both to ensure that such cases are dealt with expeditiously and to enable the parties to any particular case to know when they can expect to receive a decision.
The Secretary of State has accordingly today laid before Parliament an Act paper reporting on performance on all decisions made between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008. During this period, 100 per cent. of the 131 decisions made by the Secretary of State on cases other than appeals against refusals of consent for works to trees covered by tree preservation orders were made within their statutory timetables, as were 617 out of 627 decisions (98.4 per cent.) on tree preservation order appeals.
Statutory timetables apply to decisions on called-in planning applications; planning appeals recovered for the Secretary of States decision; other cases linked to such decisions, including listed building consent, conservation area consent, advertisement consent and enforcement notice appeals; and tree preservation order appeals. They do not apply to cases decided by inspectors or to those decided by the Secretary of State jointly with a Minister of another Department
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr. Iain Wright): The UK will be represented at official level at the fourth meeting of the parties to the UNECE convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (the Espoo convention), to be held in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 21 May.
The meeting will be invited to adopt a work plan and budget to cover the period to the next meeting of the parties, around 2011, and decisions on good practice, co-operation and modifications to procedures, all designed to improve the effectiveness of the convention. None of the matters to be considered are expected to raise concerns about UK interests. We will support adoption of a work plan that is realistic and properly costed, and will contribute to the agreed costs of the convention.
Parties will be expected to indicate their intention to ratify a protocol to the Espoo convention on strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The UK signed this protocol in 2003 with the intention of ratifying as soon as measures needed for compliance were in place. It is now established that the UK is compliant with no requirement for specific measures and we therefore propose to confirm our intention to ratify the protocol.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I wish to inform the House today of the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry (BOI) into the accident involving Pumas XW211 and XW218 in Iraq in the early hours of 15 April 2007.
XW211 and XW218 were part of a Puma helicopter formation in support of coalition operations. The accident occurred when the lead aircraft, XW211, had landed and its passengers had disembarked. XW218 then tried to land next to XW211 but its main rotor blades hit those of XW211. Sadly, two personnel lost their lives and several received serious injuries. Our deepest sympathies remain with the families of those servicemen.
A BOI was convened that same day to establish the circumstances of the loss and to learn lessons from it; a BOI does not seek to apportion blame. The board concluded that the accident was caused by XW218 being positioned too close to XW211. A contributory factor was the difficulty of judging distances accurately to another rotating discthat is, the main rotor bladesat close range.
A redacted version of the main body of the BOI report and the military aircraft accident summary (MAAS) will be available on the MOD internet site at http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/. A copy of the MAAS is also being placed in the Library of the House. As you will appreciate, the safety of our people is a principal consideration and we have therefore removed from the BOI report information that might endanger the security or capability of UK and coalition personnel, or be of use to an enemy. We have, however, tried to be as open as possible and have carefully considered the public interest arguments both for and against disclosure of the information in the report. We have ensured that each redaction is fully justified by an appropriate exemption in the Freedom of Information Act.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):
On 12 September 2007, I announced my decision that Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (HQ ARRC) and its intimate supporting elements, 1 Signal Brigade (1 Sig Bde) and 102 Logistic Brigade (102 Log Bde) should all move from Germany to the UK over the period 2009-14 (Official Report Columns 122WS - 124WS). I explained that this decision would need to be confirmed following scrutiny of the detailed plans for the moves,
and that this work would start with the proposed move of HQ ARRC and its intimate supporting elements from Rhine Garrison in Monchengladbach to Innsworth in Gloucestershire.
Today I am announcing that the programme teams detailed plans for the move of HQ ARRC and its intimate supporting elements have been completed and scrutinised, and that I have decided that the move to Innsworth will take place in 2010, which fits with the MODs current commitments and priorities and means that the site will still be fully revitalised in the near future. The Innsworth site was taken over by the Army on 1 April 2008 and it is being prepared to enable the necessary refurbishment and new build works to begin. In the meantime we will maintain all essential services at the site, undertake all necessary works services and work with the local authorities in Gloucestershire to prepare for the arrival of personnel, families and equipment in 2010.
The programme team will continue to consult with interested parties including the trade unions and, in Germany, we will continue to engage with the relevant authorities and employee representatives at national, regional and local levels.
As far as the moves of 1 Sig Bde and 102 Log Bde are concerned, I announced on 31 January 2008 that the site occupied by the defence college of aeronautical engineering (DCAE) at Cosford in Shropshire is the MODs preferred site for the two brigades (Official Report Columns 25WS-26WS). Detailed planning for these moves continues, as well as for a series of other moves within Germany to determine how best we can provide infrastructure support there once the planned moves to the UK have been completed. Under current assumptions, we envisage restructuring HQ United Kingdom support command (Germany) in Rheindahlen, which will result in a smaller support organisation integrated with HQ 1 (UK) Armoured Division in Herford, and a discrete HQ being established in the UK to ensure necessary infrastructure support to overseas locations. All the moves and changes to the provision of infrastructure support will lead to the closure of Rhine garrison and MÃ1/4nster station, the latter completing the closure of OsnabrÃ1/4ck garrison.
As stated in my previous announcement, these moves and the work of the programme team in no way signal a change in either our commitment to the NATO alliance or in our overall defence policy, nor do they in any way devalue the continued close bilateral defence relationship between the UK and Germany. Although we may make further modest adjustments to our force levels in Germany, our plan, with the continued agreement of the German Government, remains to base UK forces there in the form of HQ 1 (UK) Armoured Division and the majority of its formations and supporting unitssome 15,000 service personnelfor many years to come.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
The General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) (Amendment in Relation to Standard of Proof)
Rules Order of Council 2008 was laid before Parliament on 8 May. The General Medical Council has amended its Fitness to Practise Rules, the effect of which is to require the standard of proof that is applicable to civil proceedings to all proceedings before a Fitness to Practise panel or the Investigation Committee which commence on or after 31 May 2008. The GMC has written to all doctors whose cases may be affected by this change. These rules are not contingent on the changes in the law being proposed in the Health and Social Care Bill.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jacqui Smith): We have today published the Home Offices 2008 departmental report. Copies are available in the Vote Office and on the Home Office website. The report describes the work of the Home Office during 2007-08, in particular as reflected in its strategic objectives and key targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Vernon Coaker): The annual report of the Serious Organised Crime Agency for 2007-08 is being published and laid before Parliament today. As required by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the report includes an assessment of the extent to which the annual plan for 2007-08 has been carried out.
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): On 29 January 2008, Simon Creighton of Bhatt Murphy wrote to Treasury solicitors. In his letter, he stated that he had come across a written transcript of a telephone conversation between himself and his client, Mr Harry Roberts, in late 2005 while Mr Roberts was detained in HMP Channings Wood. The transcript was amongst material supplied to him by the specially appointed advocate (SAA) who had been involved in Mr Roberts previous parole hearing. Mr Creighton also stated that there appeared to be at least one other telephone call between himself and Mr Roberts which had been recorded.
On 30 January 2008, the Treasury solicitor forwarded Mr Creightons letter to officials at the Ministry of Justice. On receipt of the letter, officials began enquiries of HMP Channings Wood as to how the telephone conversations had come to be recorded and transcribed.
In response to the allegations being made, the then Deputy Director General of HM Prison Service commissioned an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the interception, monitoring and retention of communications between Mr Roberts and his solicitor. I also asked for an internal investigation to be undertaken by the National Offender Management Service to determine the precise circumstances in which the transcripts of legally privileged conversations had come to be made and passed to the SAA. I am now in a position to inform the House of the findings of the investigations into this issue.
This statement relates to how transcripts of conversations between Mr Creighton and Mr Roberts came to be included in material prepared for Mr Roberts previous parole hearing. In summary, the Prison Service investigation concluded that this occurred because Mr Roberts failed to identify his solicitors telephone number to staff at Channings Wood prison, though Mr Roberts, through his solicitor, disputes this finding.
The prison rules allow for the interception of communications in prison and for intercepted information to be retained for up to three months and to be disclosed to the police and others when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, either on receipt of a lawful application to access the information or by way of lawful voluntary disclosure. Interception is the action that makes the contents of a telephone or mail communication available to a person other than the sender and intended recipient. An operational manager can authorise the interception of communications for reasons such as prison security and control, but there is also a policy that prisons will monitor all the communications of certain prisonersfor example category A prisonerswho pose the greatest risk to the public and/or security within prisons. Telephone monitoring is the action of listening to recordings of the content of intercepted telephone communications. Prison staff keep a record of which calls have been monitored. The interception described here is undertaken by the prison authorities under prison rules. It does not require authorisation by a Secretary of State under part I of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Nor should it be confused with the directed surveillance class of authorisations under part II of RIPA, necessary for the conduct of covert eavesdropping in prison visiting rooms, which were the subject of the recent inquiry by the chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department made a statement on 21 February 2008 (Official Report, col. 536). There is no suggestion that any legal visits to Mr Roberts were monitored.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|