|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents have been reported in each of the last five years of (a) assaults and (b) harassment against scientists and institutions involved in animal research. 
Mr. Denham: The crime statistics do not distinguish between the occupations of victims, but there is no doubt that animal rights extremists have been increasingly ready to resort to criminal methods in recent years, and as a Government we are determined to take all possible steps to protect those engaged in legitimate scientific research.
The only records the UK Passport Service holds relating to lost passports are those for passports reported to be lost, stolen or unavailable and for those which have been recorded as missing in the post. These figures are given:
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 91W
|Year||Lost, stolen or unavailable(19)||Lost in post(19)|
(19) All figures are for calendar year except where otherwise stated
(20) Not available
(21) Figures are from April to September 2001
(22) To May 2001
(23) To September 2001
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of Sir Herman Ouseley's report on the impact of segregated schools on the riots in Bradford. 
Mr. Denham: Lord Ouseley's report was commissioned and prepared for Bradford Vision, a partnership involving local government, police and other agencies. The Public Order Community Cohesion Ministerial Group, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set up following the disturbances earlier this summer in the north-west, is looking at the wider issues of segregation, including education. My colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills are contributing to the group's work. The group will be taking full account of Lord Ouseley's observations on this issue in Bradford. I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of their findings at this stage.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) who communicated to Mr. Alun Evans the decision to move him from his duties; and when this was done; 
(2) what representations have been made by Alun Evans' trade union about the circumstance surrounding the decision to remove him from his duties; 
(3) if he will reinstate Alun Evans to his duties as Director of Communications of his Department; 
(4) if Miss Jo Moore's contract as special adviser at his Department was her only employment contract as at 1 October; 
(5) when Sir Richard Mottram was informed of the Secretary of State's verbal reprimand of Jo Moore, special adviser; 
(6) what the division of responsibility and powers is between himself and the Permanent Secretary to move staff and vary duties within his Department; 
(7) who, in addition to Alun Evans, Director of Information at his Department, received the recently published e-mail from Miss Jo Moore of 11 September; 
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 92W
(9) who took the decision to move Alun Evans, Director of Communication at his Department, from his duties; and who had previously been consulted prior to the decision; 
(10) what information Miss Jo Moore requested Alun Evans, Director of Communications at the Department of Transport, to release to the media during (a) July, (b) August and (c) September about (i) Bob Kiley, London Transport Commissioner and (ii) the manner in which the report of London Underground commissioned by Parsons Brinckerhoff had been prepared and drafted; and if he will make a statement; 
(11) what the salary is of Alun Evans, until recently Director of Communications at his Department; 
(12) what the salary of his adviser Miss Jo Moore is; and what are the contractual hours worked; 
(13) what duties Alun Evans, the former Director of Communication at his Department, will fulfil on 17 October. 
Mr. Byers [holding answer 17 October 2001]: The Permanent Secretary is responsible to me for ensuring that the Department is effectively and efficiently organised and staffed. He does so within the framework of the rules governing civil service recruitment and promotion. The Permanent Secretary is responsible for discussing with senior staff their career development and timing of moves from one appointment to another. No representations have been made by any trade union in connection with Mr. Evans's move.
When Mr. Evans took up appointment as Director of Communication it was envisaged that he would move back into policy work in the civil service in due course. This he has now done. He has taken up post, working with Dr. Iain Anderson as head of the secretariat on his inquiry into the foot and mouth outbreak.
Ms Moore had asked an information officer to make the media aware that there was a document which showed that one of Mr. Kiley's assistants had proposed changes to a draft report by consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, about controlling standards of workmanship and safety-related activities of infrastructure companies under the anticipated London Underground Public Private Partnership (PPP) contracts. The proposed changes were intended to make the report more critical of the PPP. The Department did not in the event release the document.
My noble and learned Friend the Minister for housing, planning and regeneration drew attention to this document in answer to a question on 24 July 2001, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 184548.
I informed the Permanent Secretary of my personal reprimand on 9 October. Under the Department's disciplinary procedures the Permanent Secretary has given Ms Moore an official warning as to her conduct. She has made a statement in which she has accepted responsibility for her actions and offered a sincere apology.
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 93W
Ms Moore works 26 hours a week as a special adviser. This is currently her only contract of employment. It is the Government's policy that details of individual salaries for special advisers should remain confidential.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of Jo Moore in the decision to apply for an administration order under section 59 of the Railways Act 1993. 
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what contacts he has authorised between his special advisers and the media since 7 June in relation to Railtrack. 
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what new proposals he intends to make for the operation of the (a) Strategic Rail Authority and (b) Rail Regulator following the decision to place the subsidiary of Railtrack into administration. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 18 October 2001]: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 954.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what meetings he held with Ernst and Young to discuss whether Railtrack plc should be put into administration; and when these meetings were held. 
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much financial support will be made available to the successor company to Railtrack; and how much the Government expected to pay to Railtrack in 200001 and 200102 for similar purposes. 
22 Oct 2001 : Column: 94W
In 200001 some 85 per cent. of Railtrack's £2,476 million income was paid to it in access charges by train operating companies, which were paid £1,130 million in revenue support grants from the Strategic Rail Authority and Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs). In 200102 Railtrack continued to receive indirect support via track access charges. In addition, on 1 October it received £337 million in direct grant payment from the SRA, and will receive a further £162 million in direct grant when requested by the administrators.
The direct network grant payments over the next five years, as determined by the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the 2 April agreement between Government and Railtrack, will be transferred to Railtrack's successor body on emergence from administration.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how the successor company to Railtrack will be accountable to (a) him and (b) other Government agencies. 
Mr. Jamieson: The Government's proposal is for the successor company to be a private sector company limited by guarantee. Such a company would not be accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much capital will be made available to the successor company to Railtrack to enable it to acquire Railtrack's assets from the administrators. 
Mr. Jamieson [holding answer 18 October 2001]: The Government have proposed a private sector company limited by guarantee to succeed Railtrack and intend to agree a transfer scheme with the railway administrators. We plan to structure this new company so that it would achieve at least a BBB investment grade credit rating.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|