| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Appeals by Healthcare Professionals
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many sitting days of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are currently occupied in hearing and deciding appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by healthcare professionals.[HL1379]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): This year appeals by healthcare professionals were heard on 16 days in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; on four of those days other business was dealt with as
well. Medical appeals are heard by boards of three members of the committee. These 16 days, therefore, represent 48 judge days. Not all the judges who sit on these boards are serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, since some are other members of the Judicial Committee, eg retired Law Lords, senior judges from the Commonwealth and past or present members of the Court of Appeal. Of the 48 judge days this year, 28 were sat by Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and 20 by other members of the Judicial Committee.The corresponding figures for last year were that medical appeals were heard on 14 days, three of which were mixed business days, and the appeals occupied 25 judge days of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
Magistrates' Courts: Closure
Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 12 November 2001 (Official Report, col. WA 49) whether he has been advised of any further closures of magistrates' courthouses in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years for which statistics are available; and what are the locations of such closures.[HL2132]
The Lord Chancellor: I have been further advised that Gravesend courthouse in Kent closed on 9 June 2000, bringing the annual total to 13 in 2000. I was unaware on 12 November 2001 that it had been closed. All other figures and locations in my earlier Answer are unchanged.
Sierra Leone
Lord Alli asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans they have concerning the deployment of British troops in Sierra Leone. [HL2066]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): Our military training and assistance programme continues to make good progress towards its goal of developing a professional, accountable and effective Sierra Leone Army, able to protect the security and integrity of Sierra Leone on its own. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Hoon) announced in another place in September that, following the completion of the work of British short-term training teams, our military presence would reduce to 360 shore-based personnel by January 2002, remaining at that level until April. Since then, it has been announced that presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone are to be held on 14 May 2002. We have therefore decided to maintain our presence at the force levels announced in September over the period of the elections. The International Military Advisory and Training Team will continue the military training and assistance task with the Sierra Leone Army.
Gas Transportation Tariffs
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What assessment they made of the strategic development importance of natural gas when designing the gas transportation tariffs in the United Kingdom. [HL1330]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): In Great Britain gas transportation tariffs are levied by Transco and regulated by Ofgem through licence conditions, including the licence condition relating to the price control.
In setting the price control, Ofgem is mindful of the need to ensure that Transco has sufficient finance and incentive to invest in additional capacity to meet future gas needs.
Nuclear Reactors: Radioactive Waste
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether British Nuclear Fuels Limited has advised the South African Government that radioactive waste generated by the new nuclear reactors being developed by British Nuclear Fuels Limited and Eskom, the South African-owned electricity corporation, can be stored at sites within the United Kingdom; and, if so, which sites. [HL1868]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No such discussions have taken place.
Scotland: Railways
The Earl of Mar and Kellie asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether in Scotland the expansion of the railway network is a devolved matter and the maintenance of the railway network is a reserved matter.[HL2004]
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The expansion and maintenance of the railway network, including Scotland, are reserved matters. Funding of the Scottish franchise and the preparation of directions and guidance for the SRA's work in Scotland are matters for the Scottish Executive. If the Scottish Executive wishes to expand the railway network beyond the existing agreement, it may look to do so. However, it must provide the necessary funding from within its own budget. Work is in progress to devolve to Scottish Ministers the responsibility for the parliamentary process for approving the construction and operation of new railways in Scotland, but this does not affect the SRA's overall responsibility for the development of the GB network.
Trans-Pennine Express Franchise
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether it is their policy that the passenger train operations should be consolidated into a smaller number of regional and operational franchises; and, if so, whether they believe that the trans-Pennine express franchise would be better combined with the main franchise for local services in the North of England.[HL2030]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Consolidation of franchises may provide benefits in particular cases from operational efficiency and value for money but may also entail risks in other cases from loss of competition and management focus. My right honourable friend has yet to receive final proposals for a trans-Pennine express franchise from the Strategic Rail Authority but provisionally takes the view that in this case the benefits, which include stronger management focus on a distinctive set of routes and services, outweigh the potential drawbacks.
Driving Licence Applications
Lord Lipsey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency asks customers to send it their passports when applying for a driving licence; and[HL2031]
Why, and following what risk assessment, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency refuses to accept photocopied documents in support of licence applications.[HL2033]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the driving licence now contains a photograph, identity checks have been tightened up compared with those previously made for paper licences. In line with the Government's policy on combating identity fraud, all drivers are required to provide evidence of identity such as a passport or birth certificate.
Applicants for photocard driving licences were initially permitted to supply photocopies of identity documents. As the Government's strategy on fraud prevention evolved, the risks of accepting photocopied documents rather than originals became apparent. This gave rise to the current requirement to provide original documents. Once a driver has provided proof of identity they will not normally need to do so again.
DVLA: Loss of Returned Documents
Lord Lipsey asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In how many cases last year passports or birth certificates went missing between being sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and being returned.[HL2032]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: During the past financial year the number of compensation claims met as a result of a customer not having received
documentation such as a passport or birth certificate returned by DVLA in support of a driving licence application were 3,474, or 0.06 per cent of the 5.4 million photocard licences issued in the same period.Of these claims, Royal Mail (Consignia) accepted responsibility for the loss of 70 per cent and reimbursed DVLA accordingly.
Planning Obligations
Baroness Crawley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they will publish their consultation document on planning obligations.[HL2104]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We are publishing today a consultation document entitled Planning obligations: delivering a fundamental change, which is one of a series of consultation papers that together propose a radical reform of the planning system.
Planning obligations (also known as Section 106 agreements) are typically agreements between developers and local authorities negotiated in the context of granting a planning consent. They have been criticised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan Committee) for being insufficiently transparent. Business finds them slow to negotiate, unpredictable and, in some cases, unfair. They are then a disincentive to developers, who may find themselves with long, expensive planning delays.
We are proposing to replace the present system of negotiated planning obligations with a tariff that will be set by local authorities in their local development plans. The tariff will apply in principle to all development that receives a planning consent. It will therefore give business much more certainty about what cost, in terms of planning obligations, it faces if it chooses to buy and develop a particular piece of land or property. We are also proposing that some development should be exempt because it is too small, it is financially marginal—such as development of an urban brownfield site—or serves a clear purpose in promoting sustainable development.
The tariff would be spent in line with the priorities set out in local development plans. We would expect the provision of affordable housing to be a high priority in most plans.
Our proposals will create an open, accountable and predictable system that will enable business to see at the outset of a development what level of planning obligation is likely to be incurred. The tariff will so far as possible require no negotiation. It will be much easier for local authorities to administer and should allow planning permissions to be issued much faster.
We propose in the consultation document to allow planning obligations to be used to enable communities to share in the benefits of sustainable growth. Development pressures in some areas are placing heavy burdens on the existing infrastructure and especially on the supply of affordable housing for
nurses, teachers, police officers and other keyworkers. We need to ensure that new development supports the investment required in new facilities to help improve the quality of life for local communities.
Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Library of the House.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page