|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the circumstances were that determined the police decision to allow members of the Castlederg Young Defenders to parade through the nationalist area surrounding Ferguson Crescent, Strabane, on 11 July; and what correspondence he has had with representatives of the local community. 
The Parades Commission issued a determination on 5 July, namely that the parade is prohibited from entering that part of the notified route which includes Ferguson Crescent and Killeter Road. Following the Commission's decision an application for a review was made. On 7 July the Commission met to hear oral representations and to review its decision in light of these representations. After hearing all the available information against the factors contained in the Commission's guidelines document, the Commission upheld its original decision.
28 Jul 2000 : Column: 1007W
study to complete the work undertaken by the Diplock Review Group in drawing up arrangements for a return to jury trial. 
Mr. Ingram: There are no plans for an independent review of the provisions. However, under section 126 of the Terrorism Act the Government are required to lay a report on the working of the Act before both Houses of Parliament at least every 12 months. The report will be completed by an independent reviewer. Part VII of the Terrorism Act contains temporary measures for Northern Ireland only including the Diplock court system provisions. All these powers are subject to annual review and renewal by affirmative order taking account of the Government's overall objective, under the Belfast Agreement, to remove the powers as soon as it is safe to do so. The Reviewer's report would obviously inform any debates on the renewal of Northern Ireland powers.
Mr. Ingram: The Review Group received a total of eight written submissions from external organisations and the full list of those who responded is set out at Annexe B of the report. A number of the organisations requested that their submissions should remain confidential therefore I would suggest my hon. Friend approach the organisations directly if he wishes to obtain a copy of their written submission.
Mr. Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the reports submitted to his Department by bodies that were created after May 1997 and that include significant and plural membership from outside the civil service, stating in each case the body writing the report, the date the report was submitted, how many recommendations were made, the number of those recommendations that have been implemented to date and the number of recommendations that have been rejected; and if he will make a statement. 
Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional representations have been made by his Department calling for the possible inclusion of all wards within the Inverness and Nairn, and Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey Local Enterprise Company areas since the publication of the assisted area status map for Scotland on 10 April submitted to the European Commission for consideration. 
28 Jul 2000 : Column: 1008W
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. 
Dr. Reid: In the period between 1 January 1999 and 30 June 1999 the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at The Scottish Office made one overseas visit on official business, to Dublin on 10 and 11 February 1999, for discussions with senior Irish civil servants about aspects of their administration relevant to Scottish devolution. Since 1 July 1999 the Head of the Scotland Office has made no overseas visits on official business.
Mr. Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what orders he (a) has made and (b) intends to make using section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Reid: No. The heraldic description of the Saltire is an argent cross on an azure background. There is no officially recognised shade of blue for the Saltire, the longstanding convention being that any blue that is clearly "blue" is acceptable.
Mr. Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reports submitted to his Department, by bodies that were created after May 1997 and that include significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, stating in each case the body writing the report, the date the report was submitted, how many recommendations were made, the number of those recommendations that have been implemented to date and the number of recommendations that have been rejected; and if he will make a statement. 
28 Jul 2000 : Column: 1009W
|Knowsley, North and Sefton, East||59.3||56.2||58.8|
|Liverpool, West Derby||54.2||56.6||53.3|
|St. Helens, North||68.3||75.2||70.3|
|St. Helens, South||63.8||69.2||70.4|
(1) Men aged 16-64 and women aged 16-59.
ONS Labour Force Survey
Mr. Ashdown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the real terms increase in budgeted expenditure between 1996-97 and 2000-01 for (a) the Home Office, (b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments, (c) the Foreign Office, (d) Scotland Office, (e) Wales Office, (f) the Department of Social Security, (g) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (h) overseas aid spending, (i) Department of Health, (j) Department of Education and Employment, (k) Lord Chancellor's Department, (l) No. 10 Downing street, (m) Cabinet Office, (n) the Ministry of Defence, (o) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (p) the Department of Trade and Industry, (q) the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and (r) Northern Ireland; and if he will rank these from highest to lowest increases. 
Mr. Andrew Smith [holding answer 16 May 2000]: Real terms increases in Departmental Expenditure Limit spending between outturn for 1996-97 and plans for 2000-01 for these areas are set out in the following table, ranked from the highest to lowest increases. Data are taken from "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses", published in April.
28 Jul 2000 : Column: 1010W
|Department/function||Real terms increase 1996-97 to 2000-01(1)|
|(i) Department of Health||7,121|
|(j) Department for Education and Employment||2,402|
|(a) Home Office||886|
|(o) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions||569|
|(b) Chancellor's departments(1)||439|
|(h) Overseas aid spending(1)||400|
|(r) Northern Ireland||255|
|(q) Department of Culture, Media and Sport||-46|
|(p) Department of Trade and Industry||-48|
|(c) Foreign and Commonwealth Office||-53|
|(k) Lord Chancellor's Department||-54|
|(m) Cabinet Office(1)||-229|
|(f) Department of Social Security||-549|
|(n) Ministry of Defence||-927|
|(g) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(1)||-1,148|
(1) 1998-99 prices
(1) Changes and transfers of responsibility over the period mean that figures should be interpreted with care. For example, MAFF spending was exceptionally high in 1996-97 because of spending on BSE-related measures which are now unwinding; Chancellor's department figures are affected by machinery of government changes (principally the transfer of responsibility for the Contributions Agency from DSS) offset by reductions elsewhere
(1) Includes all DFID Departmental Expenditure Limit programme spending
(1) For budgeting purposes 10 Downing street is treated as part of the Cabinet Office
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|