| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2835W—continued
Support Services
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department has taken to remove duplication in the (a) assessment, (b) commissioning and (c) planning in the delivery of extra care schemes. [37302]
Mr. Woolas: The Department of Health and the Housing Corporation have been working closely together on the assessment, commissioning and planning the delivery of extra care schemes for older people to ensure a co-ordinated approach whether funding for such schemes comes through the Housing Corporation's Affordable Housing programme or the Department of Health's Extra Care Housing Fund. The Housing Corporation is continuing to work closely with the Department of Health on the next round of bids from 2006 to consider further joint funding of some schemes.
Telecommunications Masts
Mr. Evennett: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will change the planning laws so that telecommunications mast applications have to go through the full planning process; and if he will make a statement. [17838]
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2836W
Yvette Cooper: In 2000 the Stewart Report recommended that telecommunication developments should be subject to the normal planning process. The Stewart Report made this recommendation in order to improve local consultation. The arrangements the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister put in place following the Stewart Report provide for the same consultation arrangements on mobile phone masts up to 15m in height as is required by the full planning process which applies to masts over 15m in height.
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 October 2005, Official Report, column 819W, on telecommunications masts, if he will break down the number of mobile phone masts registered for business rates in England in (a) April 1998 and (b) March 2005 by local authority area. [24687]
Yvette Cooper: A break down by local authority area, of the number of non-domestic hereditaments shown in the Rating List for England, under the description of Communication Stations, for April 1998, could be delivered only at a disproportionate cost.
Dr. Pugh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1)whether planning guidelines limit the proliferation of telecommunications masts on one site; [34333]
(2) which planning and policy guidance notes limit the density of the distribution of telecommunications masts in a particular area. [34334]
Yvette Cooper: Planning policy guidance does not set any limits or expectations in respect of the density of telecommunications masts in a particular area or particular site. However, it does require that authorities consider the cumulative impact upon the environment of additional antennas sharing a mast or masts sharing a site.
Mr. Hunt: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the minimum recommended distance of phone masts from (a) schools, (b) hospitals and (c) town centres. [37873]
Yvette Cooper [holding answer 15 December 2005]: Mobile phone mast and base station developments near schools, hospitals and town centres are subject to the normal planning regulations in place throughout England, unless exempted by the regulations set out in Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO).
The precautionary approach recommended by the Stewart report has provided the basis for Government policy. The Group's report did not recommend a ban on the construction of mobile phone masts near schools or any other site and we have no plans to introduce such a ban.
Thames Gateway
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much capital would be raised in (a) the Thames Gateway area and (b) Gravesham by the introduction of the proposed planning-gain supplement; and what proportion of this funding would be handed back to elected local government in (i) the Thames Gateway and (ii) Gravesham. [37524]
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2837W
Yvette Cooper: A consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals for a Planning-gain Supplement (PGS) was published on 5 December 2005. Chapter 6 of the consultation paper sets out the key principles for allocating revenues if PGS is implemented, and seeks the views of consultees on the mechanisms for achieving these.
The closing date for responses to the consultation is 27 February 2006.
Vacant Domestic Properties
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many vacant domestic properties there were in (a) England and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years, broken down by tenure. [35354]
Yvette Cooper: Five tables, one for each of the five years from 2000 to 2004, containing the total number of vacant dwellings in England and in each London borough, broken down by tenure, have been placed in the Library of the House, and provide the latest available data.
The majority of empty homes in London are in the private sector. Of the 716,800 empty homes at national level 45.6 per cent. have been empty for more than six months. London boroughs like other local authorities will have new powers from April to bring empty homes back into use.
Valuation Office Agency
Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers the Valuation Office Agency has to conduct internal inspections of property for business rates valuation purposes. [33497]
Mr. Woolas: Paragraph 7 of Schedule 9 to The Local Government Finance Act 1988 enables a valuation officer and any person authorised by him in writing to conduct internal inspections for the purpose of carrying out a valuation for non-domestic rating. The policy of the VOA is not to enter a property without the permission of the occupier.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
Afghanistan
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the press release issued by his Department on 16 November, how much money has been pledged so far to the Afghan Counter Narcotics Trust Fund; how many of those pledges have been realised; which donor nations have (a) pledged and (b) donated; what evaluation his Department has undertaken to ascertain the amount required to make the Trust Fund a viable option; and what that figure is. [38225]
Dr. Howells
[holding answer 19 December 2005]: A total of around US $26 million has so far been pledged to the Afghan Counter Narcotics Trust Fund. So far, A$2 million (US$1.5 million) from Australia and NZ$500,000 (US$0.35 million) from New Zealand have
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2838W
been transferred into the Fund. The United Nations Development Programme will contribute US $300,000 towards the management of the Fund.
The European Commission has made a firm commitment to the Fund of 15 million euros ($18 million), and for 2005–06 the UK, through the Afghan Drugs Inter-Departmental Unit, has made a firm commitment of £3.5 million (US$6 million). The Department for International Development is considering a contribution of £20 million over three years, making a total initial UK contribution of around US $40 million. At least seven other donors have expressed an interest in contributing but have not yet pledged money.
The Trust Fund does not require a large minimum amount in it to make it financially viable. These pledges are already enough to make it a worthwhile funding instrument.
Airspace (Extraordinary Rendition)
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he (a) has written and (b) intends to write to other EU Governments to ask whether their airspace has been used for the purpose of the extraordinary rendition of those accused of terrorist activities; and if he will make a statement. [37889]
Dr. Howells [holding answer of 19 December 2005]: At the request of his EU colleagues, as the EU presidency, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the United States Secretary of State on 29 November about media reports of US rendition operations and detention camps in Europe. The US Secretary of State replied on 6 December, enclosing a copy of her public statement of 5 December, available at:
www.state.gov./secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm, by way of response. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary forwarded the US Secretary of State's reply to his EU colleagues on 7 December.
Greg Mulholland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will carry out an investigation similar to the one proposed by the Polish Government into the use by US aircraft of UK airports and airspace. [38717]
Dr. Howells: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for North- East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on 12 December 2005, Official Report, columns 1652–53W.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether (a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) members and representatives of the UK Government have sought from the US Administration clarification concerning (i) the application of the stated prohibition on the use of cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment as specified by Condoleeza Rice in her statement of 5 December 2005 and (ii) whether the prohibition applies to all US civilian and military personnel regardless of agency affiliation; what assurances he has (A) sought and (B) received concerning exceptions to this prohibition; and if he will make a statement. [38771]
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2839W
Dr. Howells: The United States Secretary of State's statement on 7 December, available at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57723.htm, was clear: as a matter of US policy, the US's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, extend to US personnel wherever they are.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 12 December 2005, Official Report, column 1653W, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), on terrorist suspects (rendition), whether his officials checked (a) Ministry of Defence records of civil registered flights using military airfields and (b) national air traffic services data; and what discussions were held with BAA on this matter. [38962]
Dr. Howells: Neither the records and data to which the hon. Member refers, nor BAA records, would demonstrate whether or not terrorist suspects have been rendited through UK territory or airspace.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances the Government has sought from the United States Administration on its purpose in rendering detainees for questioning to (a) Egypt, (b) Syria and (c) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [38964]
Dr. Howells: In the United States (US) Secretary of State's statement on 5 December, available at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/57602.htm, following my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's letter to her of 29 November, Condoleeza Rice explained that for decades the US and other countries have used renditions to transport terrorist suspects to their home country or other countries where they can be questioned, held or brought to justice. She also made clear that:
The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.
The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.
The United States has not transported anyone in, and will not transport anyone to, a country when it believes he or she will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government has made of the effect of the Chicago Convention in relation to suspected rendition flights on (a) the application of domestic criminal law and (b) other international conventions incorporated into UK law. [38965]
Dr. Howells: The Government does not consider that the Chicago Convention inhibits the application of United Kingdom domestic law or the implementation of our international obligations.
Mr. Tyrie:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any detainees originally held by UK (a) armed forces and (b) other
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2840W
agencies and subsequently transferred to United States responsibility has been rendered to (i) Egypt, (ii) Syria and (iii) other countries. [38966]
Dr. Howells: We are unaware of any individuals originally detained by UK authorities and subsequently rendited by the USA to any country.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the United States (a) reservations and (b) derogations from the UN Convention Against Torture for UK policy on the rendition of detainees to third countries. [38967]
Dr. Howells: The UK policy on rendition of detainees to third countries is very clear. Where we are requested to assist another State and our assistance would be lawful, we will decide whether or not to assist taking into account all the circumstances. We would not assist in any case if to do so would put us in breach of UK law or our international obligations, including the UN Convention Against Torture. In particular, we would not facilitate the transfer of an individual from or through the UK to another State where there were grounds to believe that the person would face a real risk of torture. This is not affected by the position of other States on the Convention.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that the UK's interpretation of the UN Convention Against Torture is applied in decisions on the rendition of detainees to other countries via UK territory or airspace. [38968]
Dr. Howells: The term rendition" is currently being used to describe informal transfers of individuals in a wide range of circumstances. Whether any particular rendition" is lawful depends on the facts of each individual case. Where we are requested to assist another State and our assistance would be lawful, we will decide whether or not to assist taking into account all the circumstances. We would not assist in any case if to do so would put us in breach of UK law or our international obligations, including under the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture. In particular, consistent with our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, we would not facilitate or permit the transfer of an individual from or through the UK to another State where there were substantial grounds to believe that the person would face a real risk of torture.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the criteria by which the Government makes the decision on whether to accept or reject an application from overseas for access to UK (a) facilities and (b) airspace for the purpose of rendition of a detainee to a third country. [38969]
Dr. Howells:
The term rendition" is currently being used to describe informal transfers of individuals in a wide range of circumstances. Whether any particular rendition" is lawful depends on the facts of each individual case. Where we are requested to assist another State and our assistance would be lawful, we will decide whether or not to assist taking into account all the circumstances. We would not assist in any case if to do so would put us in breach of UK law or our
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2841W
international obligations, including under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. In particular, we would not facilitate or permit the transfer of an individual from or through the UK to another State where there were grounds to believe that the person would face a real risk of torture.
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2005, Official Report, column 1023W, on airspace (extraordinary rendition), whether carriers are legally obliged to provide passenger lists when (a) refuelling on, (b) overflying and (c) landing on UK overseas territories. [36813]
Ms Buck: I have been asked to reply.
There is no legal obligation for carriers to provide passenger lists when refuelling, overflying or landing at UK Overseas Territories. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation applies equally to UK Overseas Territories as it does to the UK. Article 5 provides that airlines are not required to seek prior permission for non-stop flights across the territory of another state or to make a non-traffic stop in another state. Refuelling is a non-traffic stop (i.e. where no passengers or cargo are taken on board or dropped off).
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2005, Official Report, column 1023W, on airspace (extraordinary rendition), if he will define the term 'non-scheduled, non-commercial civil aircraft'; and if he will make a statement. [36814]
Ms Buck:
I have been asked to reply.
20 Dec 2005 : Column 2842W
Non-scheduled, non-commercial civil aircraft" refers to foreign civil aircraft that are not engaged in scheduled international air services and have not been engaged in the carriage of passengers, cargo, or mail for remuneration or hire. Such flights do not require prior permission to land from the Secretary of State for Transport. Article 5 is the relevant article in the Chicago Convention.
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2005, Official Report, column 1043W, on airspace (extraordinary rendition), what plans there are to review the agreement between the US and the United Kingdom regarding the provisions of the Chicago Convention; and if he will make a statement. [36815]
Ms Buck: I have been asked to reply.
The Chicago Convention is the founding instrument of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and any proposals to review it are considered by ICAO's contracting States within its established structure. The EU is negotiating an air services agreement with the US that, if agreed, will replace existing agreements between member states and the US.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |