|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Chope: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public expenditure incurred on refurbishment of the Prime Minister's private apartments at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street in each of the last 10 years. 
For the years 1993-98, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 26 January 1998, Official Report, column 66W. For 1998-99 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 28 July 2000, Official Report, columns 969-70W. For 1999-2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes on 5 June 2000, Official Report, columns 49-50W.
Mr. Lansley: To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on (a) renovation, (b) repair, (c) improvements and (d) additions to the residential flats for his occupation at Nos. 10 or 11 Downing street in (i) 1997-98, (ii) 1998-99 and (iii) 1999-2000; and what his estimate is for 2000-01. 
The Prime Minister [holding answer 27 February 2001]: It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure in the manner requested as no distinction is made between maintaining, decorating and otherwise improving residential accommodation at Nos. 10 or 11 Downing street as projects frequently cover two or more of these categories of work. For details of expenditure on
1 Mar 2001 : Column: 751W
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the potential savings arising from the Community Legal Service receiving a portion of the damages awarded in civil cases funded by legal aid. 
It would be virtually impossible to operate a contingency fund in relation to family litigation or cases where victims are seeking injunctions to prevent domestic violence. Costs are often not awarded at the end of these cases, or they are unlikely to be enforced, or there may be no damages out of which costs could be recovered from the funded client. Such a fund cannot operate where funding is provided for some Children Act cases, since funding is granted without a merits test. It would also be impossible to operate Legal Help (formerly Green Form advice) on a contingency fund basis, since cases rarely become formal proceedings where costs or damages would become recoverable.
The Government also doubt the practicality of operating a contingency fund where the private funding of litigation through conditional fee agreements and after-the-event insurance is possible. Adverse selection would result in cases with higher prospects of success funded privately on a conditional fee basis, leaving cases with weaker prospects of success to be supported by the contingency fund. That would leave the fund vulnerable to significant financial problems.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the total financial awards from successful civil cases funded by legal aid in the latest financial year for which figures are available. 
Mr. Lock: Due to changes to the Legal Services Commission's computer systems the latest available figures are for 1997-98. The total amount of moneys awarded or agreed in publicly funded civil cases was £1.37 billion. This information relates principally to one-off payments, and excludes most payments by instalment, whether in matrimonial or non-matrimonial cases.
1 Mar 2001 : Column: 752W
Mr. Cox: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many (a) men and (b) women were selected for jury service at courts covering the Greater London area during the last 12 months. 
Jane Kennedy: Jurors are selected on a random basis from among those people who are registered on the electoral rolls for England and Wales. The total number of people summoned for jury service at courts covering the Greater London area in the last 12 months was 135,858. The breakdown of how many men and how many women were summoned is not recorded, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what instructions (a) she and (b) her Department have given to deputy stipendiary magistrates concerning the avoidance of party political activity during the next General Election; and if she will make a statement. 
Jane Kennedy: Neither I nor my officials have given any instructions to Deputy District Judges (Magistrates Courts), as they are now called, specifically in relation to political activity during the next General Election. However, the memorandum on conditions of appointment and terms of service issued to every Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Courts) states plainly that they are expected to refrain from any activity, political or otherwise, which would conflict with their judicial office or be seen to compromise their impartiality. They are advised that in the event of any doubt they should contact my officials in the Judicial Group for advice.
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the assessment was by MISC6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report on separation for GM field trials; which Ministers were given it; and if she will make MISC6's assessment of the report publicly available. 
Marjorie Mowlam: It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.
1 Mar 2001 : Column: 753W
These figures are based on returns sent by health authorities to the Department and represent data collected to 30 November 2000. Uptake on 1 November in several health authorities was affected by delays in supplies from one manufacturer. Nevertheless, the data before 30 November do not reflect the work done by HAs and in primary care to promote uptake.
|Region/HA||65 and over uptake|
|East and North Hertfordshire||60|
|Northern and Yorkshire|
|Calderdale and Kirklees||64|
|Gateshead and South Tyneside||63|
|Newcastle and North Tyneside||58|
|East Sussex, Brighton/Hove||62|
|Isle of Wight||64|
|North and Mid Hants||62|
|Portsmouth and South East Hants||66|
|Southampton and South West Hants||67|
|Bury and Rochdale||58|
|North West Lancashire||60|
|Salford and Trafford||53|
|St. Helen's and Knowsley||59|
|Wigan and Bolton||49|
|Barking and Havering||63|
|Bexley and Greenwich||60|
|Brent and Harrow||48|
|Camden and Islington||34|
|Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow||52|
|East London and City||54|
|Enfield and Haringey||51|
|Kensington, Chelsea, Westminster||46|
|Kingston and Richmond||61|
|Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham||50|
|Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth||59|
|Redbridge and Waltham Forest||60|
|South and West|
|Cornwall and Isles of Scilly||62|
|North and East Devon||64|
|South and West Devon||63|
1 Mar 2001 : Column: 754W
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|