Tessa Jowell: There is nothing conceptual about the business of allocating resources to our museums and galleries; it involves dealing with hard facts on the basis of the Treasury allocation, and the decisions are made by my Department and by me, in discussion with the heads of the museums and galleries, who broadly declared themselves to be very satisfied with the

24 July 2002
Mobile Phone Thefts
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile phone thefts there have been by (a) police authority area and (b) crime and disorder partnership area each year since 1997. [43029]

Mr. John Denham: The requested information is not collected centrally.

Estimates of the number of mobile phone thefts in England and Wales as a whole in 2000–01 vary widely, depending on the source of the data used to produce the estimate. A recent research study "Mobile Phone Theft" (by Victoria Harrington and Pat Mayhew, Home Office Research Study 235) contained a number of estimates. On the basis of figures from six police forces extrapolated to England and Wales, there were an estimated 330,000 offences recorded by the police in 2000–01, while the best estimate from analysis of data from three surveys indicates that there were some 710,000 phone thefts occurring annually at this time.

We are working with the police and the mobile phone industry to reduce mobile phone robbery, undertaking public awareness campaigns and joint tracking exercises. Our discussions with the operators have recently borne fruit. By the summer all five of the main operators will be able to bar stolen handsets by reference to the unique IMEI number which identifies the handset. All of the operators are also working together to develop a shared database of stolen phones, which will allow them to disable stolen phones if there is an attempt to use them on a different network. We believe that this is a very important step forward, as it should remove one of the major incentives for robbery.

Operators have also agreed to improve security as they invest in new systems. We are pressing the handset manufacturers for similar commitments. A start has been made, but more needs to be done before Britain's mobile phone system can lead the world in security. The mobile phone industry needs to show more interest in the security of phones they are selling to British consumers and, as the motor industry has done, do more to prevent their customers from becoming the victims of crime.

16 July 2002
Air Traffic
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the overall manning level of air traffic controllers at Swanwick has been, expressed as a percentage of optimal manning levels since its opening; [70126]

(2) how much time has been lost to flight delays in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999; [70124]

(3) how many overload reports have been made by air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999; [70123]

(4) what the full establishment of air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region has been in each month of the past three years; and what the current establishment of air traffic controllers is; [70122]

(5) how much time has been lost to absenteeism by air traffic controllers in the London Flight Information Region in each month since January 1999. [70125]

Mr. Jamieson: These are operational matters for National Air Traffic Services Ltd (NATS). 

16 July 2002
US-UK Air Services
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has received in the last three months from the European Commission regarding the regulation of UK-US aviation; and if he will make a statement. [70062]

Mr. Jamieson: We have had correspondence from the Commission about a complaint by bmi british midland about the operation of the Bermuda 2 agreement with the United States.

16 July 2002
Heathrow Airport
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures his Department has collated for the SERAS report on comparative rates of growth over the past five years at (a) Heathrow airport and (b) its competitors. [70063]

Mr. Jamieson: The Civil Aviation Authority published statistics show the rate of growth in terminal passengers at Heathrow airport over the last five years. These are set out in the table below together with equivalent figures for Heathrow's main European competitors.

Terminal passengers
				million
	Heathrow	Amsterdam	Paris (CDG)	Frankfurt
1997	57.84	31.02	35.10	39.68
1998	60.35	33.95	38.47	42.15
1999	61.97	36.43	43.48	45.43
2000	64.27	39.27	48.14	49.05
2001	60.45	39.31	47.94	48.29
Percentage increase	+4.5	+26.7	+36.5	+21.7

Source:  CAA statistics (Heathrow only) and DP statistics.

15 July 2002
US-UK Air Services
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to discuss the agreement of a liberalised US-UK air services agreement with the United States; and if he will make a statement. [70060]

Mr. Jamieson: The Government are keen to liberalise the UK-US air services agreement to provide increased competition on fair terms and improved access by UK airlines to the world's largest market. All the options open to the Government are being reviewed before a decision on the best way forward is taken.  

15 July 2002
Singapore Airlines
Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision he has made on an open skies agreement with Singapore to enable Singapore Airlines to commence services between London Heathrow and the US. [70061]

Mr. Jamieson: The Government's overall objective in negotiating air service agreements is to negotiate fully liberal agreements where possible. Singapore is one of a number of countries with which the Government intend to discuss the possibility of full liberalisation. The aim of such discussions would not be restricted to enabling a particular airline to operate to a particular destination, but would be to provide benefits to the consumers, airlines and economies of both countries.

4 Jul 2002
Rural Transport

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government have met their target to have a rural transport partnership in every rural county in England. 

Mr. Jamieson: A rural transport partnership has now been established by the Countryside Agency in every predominantly rural county and unitary authority in England. 

2 Jul 2002
Bus Regulation

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): The Minister seems more than happy to become involved in regulating public transport everywhere—that is, everywhere except London. Does he agree with his erstwhile colleague, now the Mayor of London, who said not so long ago,

"I hate cars. If I ever get any powers again, I'd ban the lot."?

Does the Minister have any sympathy with the thousands of motorists, bus drivers and taxi drivers in London, who each day face ever-increasing delay and congestion because the Mayor has tinkered with the phasing of traffic lights and the alignment of bus lanes and road junctions to soften up the public for congestion charging? Does the Minister condone what the Mayor is doing and, if not, what is he going to do about the situation?

Mr. Spellar: One of the matters for which, fortunately, I am not responsible is the Mayor of London. I detect, as I did last week, the considerable enthusiasm for the Mayor that is felt by Opposition Members. However, I have a far longer track record in opposing him, in his previous incarnation as Ken Livingstone, than they do.

11 Jun 2002
Central Railway

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing the debate on this important proposal, which will have a dramatic impact on the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends.

I shall be brief, and ask one or two questions, as it is important that the Minister and the Government come clean on the issue once and for all. Do the Government support the scheme? Do they support the use of a hybrid Bill? How many times do they intend to send the proposal backwards and forwards like a yo-yo to the Strategic Rail Authority, which will pronounce on the matter in September? May we have the Minister's assurance that the Government will make a final decision as soon as possible after that date?

The Government must take a view on whether they want the difficulties of a hybrid Bill if they are not convinced that the private sector, in the guise of Central Railway or a successor company, will deliver money from that sector.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, by taking the hybrid Bill route the Government, may, by association, be implicated in the scheme. If at a future date the private sector runs into difficulties and the scheme does not have the finances expected, the Government may be duty bound to bail it out. Are there not therefore considerable implications for the public purse?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing this debate and on his contribution to it. He rightly made many points on behalf of his constituents, as did all hon. Members who contributed. The debate has shown that there are differences on the Labour Benches and on the Conservative Benches—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) shakes his head, but there are differences. For example, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who I thought was getting applause at one stage, has a very different view of the matter. It is good that there has been such interest on both sides of the Chamber—the Government are being pressed hard and therefore we must consider the matter most carefully and in detail.

I was pleased to note that I am the fourth Minister to have answered a debate on this subject. We live in interesting times and who knows how many others may yet have to do so. The hon. Member for Reigate gave an interesting analysis of what he considers to be the points against the project. I will not go into those points, but they and those made by other hon. Members both for and against the project will be given the most careful consideration when the Government decide whether to support the scheme. I can assure him that those points are not new to us and are being given careful consideration.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of blight. That is a regrettable but inevitable consequence of any major scheme. I hope that the matter can be resolved, particularly on behalf of the constituents of those hon. Members who have raised the matter today. That is why we have placed a time scale on the SRA's consideration of the scheme on our behalf. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talked about natural justice being served. Natural justice is served in such matters by first giving careful consideration to any proposal and then deciding on it as expeditiously as possible so that people get an outcome.

The hon. Member for Reigate asked two questions, which were reinforced by his hon. Friends. He asked whether we support the scheme and whether we support the hybrid Bill. Those questions were put on 6 March 2001 by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to one of the previous Ministers answering on the matter. They were recycled from that debate, so I will recycle the answers as well, in my own way. We certainly support, in principle, a move from road to rail. [Interruption.] It needs to be said—if the hon. Member for Reigate wants an answer to his questions, he will have to bear with me.

If a totally viable and sustainable case were made that met the terms of reference in the SRA review, we would have to make an informed decision at the end of the process. Do we support the scheme? We will have to await the outcome of the SRA review to find out whether it meets the criteria that have been mentioned and that were set out in the previous debate.

Do we support the proposed hybrid Bill? In the end, the approach is up to the proposer. If the scheme were to meet all the very rigorous criteria, we would support it. If it were not to meet those criteria, we would not. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's questions and is helpful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who originally asked the questions more than a year ago.

10 Jun 2002
Fires

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how many domestic fires were recorded by each fire authority in each of the past 10 years; [59202]

(2) how many (a) deaths and (b) serious injuries caused by domestic fires were recorded by fire authorities broken down by age range (i) 0–5, (ii) 6–10, (iii) 11–20 and (iv) 21 plus in the last 10 years; [59204]

(3) how many fires in multiple occupation homes were recorded by fire authorities in each of the past 10 years; [59205]

Mr. Moss: (4) how many (a) deaths and (b) serious injuries caused by domestic fires were recorded by each fire authority in each of the past 10 years.

Mr. Leslie: I have been asked to reply.

The information requested is contained in the tables which have been placed in the House Library.

10 June 2002
Parish Councils

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what requirement there is for parish councillors to sign the Code of Conduct as individuals in cases where their parish council as a whole has not adopted the Code of Conduct. [59697]

Mr. Leslie: I have been asked to reply.  The Local Government Act 2000 and The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 place a duty on parish councils to adopt a code of conduct by 5 May 2002. If a code is not adopted by a parish council, parish councillors are not under a duty to give a written undertaking to observe a code. However, if a parish council fails to adopt a code, the provisions of the model code apply to all members of that council. Newly-elected members must give an undertaking on accepting office that they will observe the provisions of the model code. 

22 May 2002
Regional Assemblies

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which body is responsible for (a) the regulation and (b) the auditing of expenditure of the regional assemblies. [58071]

Dr. Whitehead: The arrangements for funding elected regional assemblies are described in chapter 5 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice", published on 9 May. Regional assemblies' financial responsibilities will be set out in the primary legislation which will be needed before assemblies can be established. Assemblies will be subject to appropriate audit arrangements. We are discussing with the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission what form these should take.

21 May 2002
County Councils

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): It really is time the Minister came clean and admitted that county councils will no longer exist in their present form if and when regional government is introduced. As the condition set by the Government for regional government is that councils should be reorganised into unitary councils, will the Minister confirm that such a reorganisation could cost up to £2 billion if all eight regions opted for regional government? For that huge cost, we would get not one extra teacher, not one extra social worker, and no improvement whatever in local councils' basic services. So what is the point?

Mr. Raynsford: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should seek to dredge up figures in the usual Conservative way to imply that there will be huge costs involved in reorganisation. The only pointer that I can think of for his figures is the extraordinary waste of time and money during the Banham review, which his Government set up in the 1990s and which created exactly the climate of chaos and confusion in local government that we are determined not to replicate. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who have an extraordinary record—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will answer his question. It is pretty rich of the Conservatives, who abolished county councils in Humberside, Avon, Cleveland and Berkshire, to accuse this Government of having an agenda for abolishing local government. We do not.

1 May 2002
Non-departmental Public Bodies

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many NDPBs have ceased to exist since 1997. [52501]

Mr. Leslie: I have been asked to reply.

Records of the numbers of public bodies which are created and which cease to exist each year are not currently collected centrally. However, the total number of public bodies in existence each year is published in Annex B of the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies 2001", a copy of which is held in the Library, and which is available on the internet.

In 1979, the first year in which the total number of public bodies was recorded, there were 2,167 public bodies. In 1997, this had decreased by 48 per cent. to 1,128. The total as at 31 March 2001 was 1,025 a further reduction of 9 per cent. In parallel with the continuing commitment to reduce the number of NDPBs, the Government also remain committed to ensuring that new NDPBs and other bodies are set up only where it can be demonstrated that this is the most cost-effective and appropriate means of carrying out the function concerned.

"Public Bodies 2002", giving details of public bodies in existence as at 31 March 2002, will be published in due course.

5 March 2002
Regional Assemblies

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): Does the Minister agree with the headline in a recent edition of the Local Government Chronicle, suggesting that the Prime Minister is selling the counties out? Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government intend to sell the counties out?

Dr. Whitehead: Not only do we not intend to sell the counties out, but we intend to ensure that elected regional assemblies will be created only when people in the region concerned want those assemblies to be created on an elected basis. Therefore, the idea that there is a plan for the extinction of county councils, regardless of the popular feeling in the regions, is completely untenable.

29 January 2002
Local Government Deregulation

Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): This Labour Government have piled more and more regulations and burdens on to local authorities without providing proper funding. Does the Minister agree with what his colleague, the secretary of the county councils' Labour group, recently wrote about this year's council tax rises? He said that

"9.9 per cent feels like safe ground, with 8.9 per cent. looking attractive"?

Does the Minister think that 8.9 per cent. looks attractive to the average pensioner?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I do not, and it is not necessary for me to do so. As I have made clear, the settlement put in place by the Government amounts to a 7.5 per cent. increase. Substantial increases will go to county councils, which will receive a minimum of 4 per cent. That is well above the rate of inflation, and is guaranteed by the floors that we have put in place. It compares very markedly with the cuts in grant and in standard spending assessments introduced by the previous Government. It is not surprising that the Opposition are nervous about council tax increases. The Government are giving a decent settlement to local authorities, and we expect them to respond accordingly.