| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Tuesday, 21st May 2002.
Cabinet Meetings
Lord Patten asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 7 May (WA 169), why information on when Cabinet meets, and the length of those meetings, is regarded as an official secret. [HL4338]
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): The purpose of Exemption 2 of Part II of the code of practice is to allow information not to be released if its discosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. The code includes the proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees under this exemption.
Drug Smuggling: Police Costs of Prevention
Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is the total annual cost to the police service for their involvement in preventing the smuggling of illegal drugs into the United Kingdom. [HL4254]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): I am afraid that the information is not available. The police do not distinguish between expenditure on drugs and other items.
Public Guardianship Office
Lord Carlile of Berriew asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In respect of each substantial damages awards dealt with by the Court of Protection or the Public Guardianship Office since 24 May 2001:
(a) what proportion was invested in equities;
(b) when was the date of the investment;
(c) what was the value of the investment at that date;
(d) what is the current value; and
(e) what is the net real rate of return on the investment.[HL4225]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): It is not possible to provide this information without a file by file investigation of the Public Guardianship Office's records. This could only be done at disproportionate cost.
Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): The Government have authorised the compulsory call out of anaesthetists, general surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons from the volunteer Reserve Forces to support military operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan. Initially, we plan to call out five consultant anaesthetists and two consultant orthopaedic surgeons to report in mid-June and four consultant general surgeons to report in mid-July. Each individual will be mobilised for a period of no more than three months, which allows a little over two months' deployment in an operational theatre with the balance comprising pre-deployment training and post-tour leave. We expect to have to continue using similar, or possible slightly higher, numbers until next spring. The requirement will be reviewed regularly to ensure that the numbers called out are the minimum required to support operations.
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The Government in May 2001 received the inspector's report of the public inquiry into the London International Freight Exchange (LIFE). A decision was delayed pending the outcome of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry and the need to refer back to all the parties on any potential implications of this decision on the nearby LIFE proposals. If we are able to conclude the reference back process by the end of May, a decision and publication of the report is expected to be in the summer.
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Figures are not kept in the form requested. However, projected spending on construction and maintenance of the trunk road
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) plans to upgrade the tunnel by 2005 to allow the conveyance of containers up to 9ft 6in in height by 2.6m wide on standard 1m high wagons. This gauge covers all types of deep sea shipping box in operation.
Detailed assessment, funded by the SRA, of the necessary alterations to the tunnel interior is currently under way. The results of this study will be received during financial year 2002–03 and will enable the SRA to estimate the cost of the necessary works.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The arguments for regional assemblies of 25 to 35 members are set out in paragraph 7.7 of the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, published on 9 May. Regional assemblies in England will have a significant range of powers, but, unlike the National Assembly for Wales, we are not proposing that assemblies should have powers on such matters as the National Health Service, education, social services, local government or agriculture, nor will they have powers to make secondary legislation. We believe that comparison between regional assemblies in England and the Geater London Assembly, with 25 members representing some
7.3 million people, is more relevant.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether medical officers from the Reserve Forces are to be called out for mobilised service in support of deployed operations.[HL4381]
When they received the findings of the public inquiry into the London International Freight Exchange at Colnbrook; and when they expect to publish the report.[HL4293]
What figure is used to calculate the cost of the provision of public facilities for the movement of freight by road; and when this figure was last updated.[HL4294]
What estimate they have of the cost of upgrading the railway tunnel at Ipswich so that it allows free movement by rail of containers to and from the port of Felixstowe; and what plans they have for this upgrading.[HL4295]
What is the reasoning behind their proposal that a regional assembly for north-west England, serving approximately 7 million people, should have not more than 35 members, compared with the National Assembly for Wales which serves approximately
3 million people and has 60 members; and what extra powers are possessed by the National Assembly for Wales which justify the difference in numbers. [HL4300]
Why, in any devolution referendum in north-west England, the electors of Merseyside and Greater Manchester should have a vote on the future local government structure in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. [HL4301]
21 May 2002 : Column WA86
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Voters in Merseyside and Greater Manchester would not be asked to vote on the future local government structure in Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. Voters in the north-west region as a whole would be asked whether they support the Government's proposals for an elected regional assembly for their region. In casting their vote, they would be able to take account of the associated proposals for restructuring local goverment in the region.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether in any devolution referendum in north-west England the electors of Lancashire will have the final say on the future structure of local government in that county, or whether their views may be over-ridden by the votes of electors in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cumbria. [HL4302]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The future local government structure in areas which currently have two tiers of local government would depend on the recommendations of the Boundary Committee and on whether the region as a whole voted in favour of having an elected assembly.
Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their estimate of the likely strength of party groups in regional assemblies in the North East, North West and Yorkshire, estab.lished on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, if people voted as they did at the last general election. [HL4303]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The table below shows the proportion of votes given to the different parties at the 2001 general election in the three regions.
| Conservative | Labour | Liberal Democrat | Other | |
| North East | 21.3 | 59.4 | 16.7 | 2.6 |
| North West | 29.3 | 50.7 | 16.7 | 3.3 |
| Yorkshire & the Humber | 30.2 | 48.6 | 17.1 | 4.0 |
The voting system for elections to regional assemblies is described in paragraphs 6.11 to 6.13 of the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, published on 9 May. Annex G illustrates in detail how the system works. As the White Paper says, we expect that the overall representation in an assembly will be broadly representative of the votes cast. However, it could be misleading to give an estimated outcome based on the results from a different type of electoral system (first-past-the-post for a general election) and where other factors are also unknown (eg, the exact proportion of ''top-up'' seats and the effect of the 5 per cent vote threshold for representation in an assembly).
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page