Written Statement of 22 March 2004

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Fine Enforcement
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Improving fine enforcement performance is an important part of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system. Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done.

  To this end, we are launching a national initiative to target those who have defaulted on criminal penalties imposed by the courts. The initiative, called Operation Payback, will see magistrates courts across England and Wales conducting "blitzes" against serious fines defaulters in their areas.

  The operation means that money owed to the court, and therefore the taxpayer, and compensation owed to victims, is collected. The Government is sending a clear message to those who have been fined that payment is not optional and that penalties must be paid.

  The national operation is being co-ordinated by the Department for Constitutional Affairs with support from the Police and the Department for Work and Pensions.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Radioactive Waste Management
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr.Elliot Morley)
  With the establishment of the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) during the course of 2003, UK Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales have been reviewing the future of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC). This is as we said we would do in the September 2001 "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" consultation document.

  In light of this review, we have concluded that RWMAC should be put into abeyance for the two to three year period during which CoRWM will be compiling its recommendations on future policy for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes. At the end of this period we shall carry out a further review of Government advisory machinery needs in the radioactive waste management policy area.

  42WS
  This has not been an easy decision to take given the quality of the past advice we have received from RWMAC. But the key factors that have swayed my colleagues and me in arriving at this decision are:
  we believe that in principle it would be wrong for Government to have two "independent" advisory committees operating in the radioactive waste management policy area;
  we believe this could create problems of perception of the respective roles and requirements of the two Committees;
  we are fully committed to the CoRWM process and the need to drive this forward over the next two to three years, to arrive at a decision on how best to manage the UK's higher activity radioactive wastes;
  the resources available to us must be focussed on this task.

  During the course of our review work, we did receive a proposal from the committee for a reconfigured and slimmed down form of RWMAC operation. We considered this very carefully, but it did not solve the basic problem of having two independent advisory committees operating in the same policy area. And we felt that this could have potentially led to a lesser degree and standard of advice than we, and potentially the Committee itself, have come to expect.

  We recognise that needs for review and advice could arise during the period that CoRWM is conducting work and RWMAC is in abeyance. Our proposal, for the period of CoRWM's work, is to consider and address these in a case by case manner through our Radioactive Waste Policy Group (RWPG). This is a Group made up of UK Government, devolved Administration and regulatory body representatives that meets regularly, several times a year, to discuss radioactive waste management policy and regulatory issues. The Group has the remit to carry out reviews, calling on external advice, as necessary.

  I have written to the current RWMAC Chairman and his Committee members to inform them of this decision and to thank them for the hard effort, and sound advice, that they have provided in recent years. This advice will remain available for scrutiny and use on the Committee's website www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/.

DEFENCE

  Disturbances (Kosovo)
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  Last week saw a deterioration of the security situation in Kosovo. Violence broke out between ethnic Serbs and Albanians in Mitrovica in northern Kosovo, which subsequently spread to other ethnic Serb populated areas in Kosovo. The violence has resulted in deaths within both communities, as well as hundreds injured, including some KFOR troops. The situation in Kosovo although still tense, now appears calmer.

  The troops already in Kosovo were heavily committed in dealing with the situation. Commander KFOR therefore took the decision to authorise the deployment of his in-theatre tactical reserves to assist with the situation. NATO also issued instructions to reinforce KFOR with additional SFOR troops from Bosnia, including a UK company of 1st Royal Gurkha Rifles, a US company and a company from the Italian Multinational Support Unit (Carabineri).

  43WS
  In the early hours of Thursday 18 March, NATO called upon the Operational Reserve Force (ORF) Ready Battalion. The ready battalion role is one that the UK has responsibility for during the first six months of 2004. This means that, as part of our overall commitment to the Balkans, the UK provides NATO with a battalion that could, in circumstances such as these, be rapidly deployed into either Bosnia or Kosovo. The lead elements of the ORF, totalling approximately 150 men and 12 Land Rovers, departed from RAF Brize Norton on Thursday afternoon and landed in Kosovo late that evening. The vast majority of the ORF battalion of around 660 men has now deployed. 1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is providing the core of the battalion group.

  There are now around 1,100 UK armed forces personnel deployed in Kosovo.

  The purpose of this deployment is to restore calm to the province and prevent unrest spreading to areas outside Kosovo, the type of task for which the Operational Reserve was designed. UK troops will conduct routine patrolling, the guarding of sites (such as the UN Mission) and public order duties, as tasked by Commander KFOR.

  Further to the deployment of the UK battalion, NATO has requested that an element of the NATO Strategic Reserve Force, provided by a French battalion, also be deployed to Kosovo. NATO has also requested the deployment of the three standby battalions that make up the full Operational Reserve Force. These battalions are provided by the US, Germany and Italy. The German battalion has been deployed to Skopje, Macedonia, in the first instance.

  It is for NATO to determine how long reserves will be required, but in terms of an initial estimate, and with the situation changing, we believe a sensible course of action is to plan initially for a deployment period of approximately 30 days.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  "Tackling Social Exclusion"
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  Today I am launching a discussion document entitled "Tackling Social Exclusion: Taking Stock and Looking to the Future". The document is part of a programme of work being undertaken by the Social Exclusion Unit aiming to provide a clearer understanding of how Government policies have worked together to tackle social exclusion and identify future priorities. It aims to seek views and further evidence from a wide range of experts and stakeholders on the material presented.

  The material within the discussion document will be used to stimulate discussion at a seminar for key stakeholders today. Written comments or feedback are invited by 18 April 2004. Copies of the discussion document are available at http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/ and in the Libraries of the House.

  Draft Regional Transport Strategy (South-east)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation proposed changes to the draft regional transport strategy (RTS) for the south-east. They follow the public examination into the draft RTS in July 2003 and the panel report in October 2003.

  RTS's are an integral part of regional planning guidance (RPG) and the draft RTS for the south-east represents a revision to RPG9, as published in March 2001. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the RTS will be part of a statutory regional spatial strategy (RSS).

  Other partial reviews of RPG9 are at various stages in the process. In particular, a public examination into the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy is imminent, and the Secretary of State's proposed changes for the Ashford growth area will shortly be published.

  The RTS aims to achieve a transport system that progressively reaches the standards of the best in north-west Europe, by promoting management of and investment in the system; rebalancing the structure and use of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes; and supporting the regional spatial strategy, particularly managing and investing in interregional corridors and delivering urban renaissance and sub-regional objectives. This approach should also inform local authorities and other agencies in preparing relevant regional and local strategies.

  Overall the panel considered the draft RTS to be broadly compatible with RPG9, with commendably focused policies. The panel did, however, recommend many changes. Aspects of the strategy which the panel proposed changes to include the selection of strategic corridors (the regional frame), the ranking of priority projects in the investment frameworks, car parking standards, community and demand based transport, and walking and cycling.

  The panel supported the identification and development of regional transport hubs and connecting spokes as a core plank in the strategy. In place of the regional frame the panel identified the region's more important international gateways and inter-regional movement corridors. Alongside measures to facilitate urban renewal these elements were viewed as priorities for investment to deliver the spatial strategy.

  Government support these aims, and are grateful for the recommendations of the panel. However, one change to the panel's recommendations is necessary to ensure the strategy and its components are more coherently focused and provide transparent direction for the future development of the regional strategy.

  A key issue for the region is the treatment of priorities. The panel proposed a priority list of 15 schemes, made up of nine heavy rail, one light rail, two bus and three road schemes. While we view establishing regional priorities as a key element in a future RTS, we were unconvinced that the panel identified the most important regional priorities.

  More specifically, the criteria used to identify priorities and the way in which the criteria were applied did not fully reflect the draft Government guidance,

  45WS
  which was published after the examination concluded. Furthermore, the application of the criteria was not transparent and resulted in a priority list that was largely focused on a single mode and failed to identify affordability issues.

  The process of comprehensively reviewing RPG9 has already begun. As part of this work the regional assembly (RA) is intent on improving the evidence base by developing a robust approach to prioritisation, an activity that I am particularly keen to see progress on.

  I have today written to the RA with the proposed changes indicating areas where views are particularly sought from interested parties. There will now be a public consultation period on the proposed changes, which will end on 21st May.

  Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of both Houses and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  The Paymaster General (Davin Primarolo)
  As I announced in the debate on the Budget resolutions on 18 March,Official Report, column 538, the Government intend to publish the Finance Bill on Thursday 8 April. Explanatory notes on the Bill's clauses will be available in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses on that day. Members of the public will be able to obtain copies of the explanatory notes from the Treasury. These will also be available on the Treasury's website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/.

HEALTH

  Health Services for Prisoners
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  I am making this statement with the Minister with responsibility for correctional services and reducing reoffending, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins).

  The prison population demonstrates high levels of morbidity, particularly in areas such as mental health and substance misuse. Historically, primary health care services to prisoners have been secured and delivered by the Prison Service independently of the NHS.

  A formal partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS was launched in 2000 to modernise health services for prisoners. In 2002, the Government announced their intention to move this partnership on to a new phase, with the Department of Heath assuming overall financial responsibility for these services from April 2003 and the transfer of full commissioning responsibility for prison health services to NHS PCTs by April 2006. A Development Network of prisons and PCTs was established to provide a test-bed for this transfer at operational level.

  We are today announcing the NHS Primary Care Trusts that will assume responsibility for commissioning primary healthcare services in their local prisons from April 2004. This is the initial phase of
  46WS
  transfer of responsibility and involves 22 PCTs that have prisons within their boundaries. Of these 22, four have delegated commissioning responsibility to neighbouring PCTs, giving 18 PCTs the lead for local prison health partnerships.

  Covering 34 prisons across England, the 18 lead Primary Care Trusts have demonstrated a clear understanding of the health needs of their local prison populations and have, in partnership with the prisons themselves, developed robust plans to improve health services for those populations. Funding for primary health services that was previously allocated through the Prison Service will be transferred to the relevant Primary Care Trusts from April 2004. Funding for NHS secondary care services provided to prisoners is already within the financial baselines of PCTs. Investment in health services for prisoners is set to increase by over £40 million a year over the three year period to March 2006. Responsibility for commissioning health services in all publicly run prisons in England will transfer to local Primary Care Trusts by 1 April 2006.

  The 18 partnerships where commissioning responsibility will transfer from 1 April are:

  PCT

  Prisons

  Castlepoint and Rochford

  Bullwood Hall

  Doncaster East

  Lindholme

  Moorland

  Durham and Chester-le Street

  Frankland

  Durham

  Low Newton

  Exeter

  Channings Wood1

  Dartmoor2

  Exeter

  Heart of Birmingham

  Birmingham

  Hounslow

  Feltham

  Huntingdon

  Littlehey

  Islington

  Holloway

  Pentonville

  Lambeth

  Brixton

  Leeds West

  Leeds

  North Liverpool

  Liverpool

  Northumberland

  Acklington

  Castington

  Reading

  Reading

  Richmond and Twickenham

  Latchmere House

  South West Dorset

  Dorchester

  Guys Marsh3

  Portland

  Shepton Mallet4

  The Verne

  Weare

  Suffolk Coast

  Hollesley Bay

  Warren Hill

  Swale

  Elmley

  Standford Hill

  Swaleside

  West Lincolnshire

  Lincoln

  Morton Hall

  1 Managed by Exeter on behalf of Teignbridge PCT

  2 Managed by Exeter on behalf of South Hams and West Devon
  PCT

  3 Managed by SW Dorset on behalf of North Dorset PCT

  4 Managed by SW Dorsest on behalf of Mendip PCT

  Draft Regional Transport Strategy for the South-East
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is today publishing for public consultation proposed changes to the draft regional transport strategy (RTS) for the south-east. They follow the public examination into the draft RTS in July 2003 and the panel report in October 2003.

  RTSs are an integral part of regional planning guidance (RPG) and the draft RTS for the south-east represents a revision to RPG9, as published in March 2001. On commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill the RTS will be part of a statutory regional spatial strategy (RSS).

  Other partial reviews of RPG9 are at various stages in the process. In particular, a public examination into the Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy is imminent, and the Secretary of State's proposed changes for the Ashford growth area will shortly be published.

  The RTS aims to achieve a transport system which progressively reaches the standards of the best in north-west Europe by promoting management of and investment in the system; rebalancing the structure and use of the transport system in favour of more sustainable modes; and supporting the regional spatial strategy, particularly managing and investing in interregional corridors and delivering urban renaissance and sub-regional objectives. This approach should also inform local authorities and other agencies in preparing relevant regional and local strategies.

  Overall the panel considered the draft RTS to be broadly compatible with RPG9, with commendably focussed policies. The panel did, however, recommend many changes. Aspects of the strategy which the panel proposed changes to include the selection of strategic corridors (the regional frame), the ranking of priority projects in the investment frameworks, car parking standards, community and demand-based transport, and walking and cycling.

  The panel supported the identification and development of regional transport hubs and connecting spokes as a core plank in the strategy. In place of the regional frame the panel identified the region's more important international gateways and interregional movement corridors. Alongside measures to facilitate urban renewal these elements were viewed as priorities for investment to deliver the spatial strategy.
  WS 30
  The Government support these aims and are grateful for the recommendations of the panel. However, one change to the panel's recommendations is necessary to ensure the strategy and its components are more coherently focussed and provide transparent direction for the future development of the regional strategy.

  A key issue for the region is the treatment of priorities. The panel proposed a priority list of 15 schemes, made up of nine heavy rail, one light rail, two bus and three road schemes. While we view establishing regional priorities as a key element in a future RTS, we were unconvinced that the panel identified the most important regional priorities.

  More specifically, the criteria used to identify priorities and the way in which the criteria were applied did not fully reflect the draft government guidance, which was published after the examination concluded. Furthermore, the application of the criteria was not transparent and resulted in a priority list that was largely focussed on a single mode and failed to identify affordability issues.

  The process of comprehensively reviewing R PG9 has already begun. As part of this work the regional assembly (RA) is intent on improving the evidence base by developing a robust approach to prioritisation, an activity that I am particularly keen to see progress on.

  I have today written to the RA with the proposed changes indicating areas where views are particularly sought from interested parties. There will now be a public consultation period on the proposed changes, which will end on 21 May.

  Copies of the relevant documents are available in the Libraries of the House and have been provided for all of the region's MPs, MEPs and local authorities.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency: Performance Targets 2004–05
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) for the financial year 2004–05. The targets build upon progress made by the agency since it formed on 1 April 1997 and reflect the high level of service delivery required for pay, pensions and allowances, and a change programme to deliver new harmonised joint personnel administration for the Armed Forces.

  To deliver pay

  To make 99.9 per cent of all pay payments by the due date (excluding late payments caused by events determined to be outside the control of the agency).
  WS 31
  To keep the monthly error rate of accuracy for the volume of payments within 0.1 per cent.

  To deliver pension services

  To make 99 per cent of all pension payments (including new awards) by the due date. (excluding late payments caused by events determined to be outside the control of the agency).

  To keep the monthly error rate of accuracy for the volume of payments within 0.1 per cent.

  To support the delivery of joint personnel administration programme

  Subject to main gate approval, joint personnel administration partnering agreement to be signed, by 30 September 2004 for the manufacture, roll-out and delivery.

  To commence the roll-out of joint personnel administration core system for the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Army by October 2005, May 2006 and October 2006 respectively.

  To transform the agency to deliver the full potential of the joint personnel administration environment

  To deliver joint personnel administration centre capability through six stages, commencing June 2004 Stage 1 and March 2005 Stage 2.

  To deliver 100 per cent of key critical path milestones in agency transition plan.

  To deliver a cost-effective change programme in accordance with departmental priorities

  To deliver 96 per cent of major change to ensure individual development projects are delivered to specification and schedule.

  To deliver 96 per cent of all minor change in accordance with joint change management team plans agreed by partner and customer.

  To develop targets for implementation in 2005–06 that will measure the delivery of pay, pensions and personnel services against service level agreements

  To achieve the agreed service levels of all performance assessment indicators (levels 4 and 5 of current contract Schedule 2) not already included in key targets 1 and 2.

  To meet approved efficiency targets for the delivery of core services

  To reduce the unit cost by 6 per cent in 2004–05 which will contribute to a 12 per cent reduction over a four-year period from 2002–03 for the delivery of core pay and personnel administration.

  Health Services for Prisoners
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Stephen Ladyman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  I am making this Statement with my honourable Friend the Minister for Correctional Services and Reducing Reoffending, Mr Paul Goggins.
  WS 32
  The prison population demonstrates high levels of morbidity, particularly in areas such as mental health and substance misuse. Historically, primary healthcare services to prisoners have been secured and delivered by the Prison Service independently of the NHS.

  A formal partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS was launched in 2000 to modernise health services for prisoners. In 2002, the Government announced their intention to move this partnership on to a new phase, with the Department of Heath assuming overall financial responsibility for these services from April 2003 and the transfer of full commissioning responsibility for prison health services to NHS PCTs by April 2006. A development network of prisons and PCTs was established to provide a testbed for this transfer at operational level.

  We are today announcing the NHS primary care trusts that will assume responsibility for commissioning primary healthcare services in their local prisons from April 2004. This is the initial phase of transfer of responsibility and involves 22 PCTs which have prisons within their boundaries. Of these 22, four have delegated commissioning responsibility to neighbouring PCTs, giving 18 PCTs the lead for local prison health partnerships.

  Covering 34 prisons across England, the 18 lead primary care trusts have demonstrated a clear understanding of the health needs of their local prison populations and have, in partnership with the prisons themselves, developed robust plans to improve health services for those populations. Funding for primary health services that was previously allocated through the Prison Service will be transferred to the relevant primary care trusts from April 2004. Funding for NHS secondary care services provided to prisoners is already within the financial baselines of PCTs. Investment in health services for prisoners is set to increase by over £40 million a year over the three-year period to March 2006. Responsibility for commissioning health services in all publicly run prisons in England will transfer to local primary care trusts by 1 Apri 1 2006.

  The 18 partnerships where commissioning responsibility will transfer from 1 April are:

  PCT

  Prisons

  Castlepoint & Rochford

  Bullwood Hall

  Doncaster East

  Lindholme

  Moorland

  Durham & Chester-le-Street

  Frank land

  Durham

  Low Newton

  Exeter

  Channings Wood1

  Dartmoor2

  Exeter

  Heart of Birmingham

  Birmingham

  Hounslow

  Feltham

  Huntingdon

  Littlehey

  Islington

  Holloway

  Pentonville

  Lambeth

  Brixton

  Leeds West

  Leeds

  North Liverpool

  Liverpool

  WS 33

  PCT

  Prisons

  Northumberland

  Acklington

  Castington

  Reading

  Reading

  Richmond & Twickenham

  Latchmere House

  South West Dorset

  Dorchester

  Guys Marsh3

  Portland

  Shepton Mallet4

  The Verne

  Weare

  Suffolk Coast

  Hollesley Bay

  Warren Hill

  WS 34

  PCT

  Prisons

  Swale

  Elmley

  Standford Hill

  Swaleside

  West Lincolnshire

  Lincoln

  Morton Hall

  1 Managed by Exeter on behalf of Teignbridge PCT

  2 Managed by Exeter on behalf of South Hams and West Devon PCT

  3 Managed by SW Dorset on behalf of North Dorset PCT

  4 Managed by SW Dorset on behalf of Mendip PCT