|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with the Sudanese Government on a voluntary agreement to introduce a no-fly zone in Darfur. 
Mr. McCartney: We have made it clear to the Government of Sudan that we utterly condemn its continued aerial bombardment in Darfur and that this must stop immediately. We have had no discussion on a voluntary agreement to introduce a no-fly zone because of the improbability such a discussion could succeed.
We are calling on Sudan not just to adhere to the ceasefire but also to accept UN assistance for the African Union force in Darfur (AMIS) and to renew its political dialogue with the rebels. If it becomes clear
that Sudan is determined not to co-operate, the international community will need to consider the consequences. A no-fly zone is one of the options available for the international community to consider.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of the political situation in Turkmenistan; and what representations she has made to help to ensure (a) that elections take place and (b) that such elections are free, fair and subject to international observers. 
Mr. Hoon: We are encouraged by the peaceful transfer of power in Turkmenistan following the sudden death of President Niyazov on 21 December 2006. The Finnish presidency and EU special representative Pierre Morel attended the funeral on behalf of the EU. Our ambassador in Ashgabat, Peter Butcher, represented the UK.
The date for the presidential election has been set for 11 February. Our ambassador in Ashgabat is in close contact with his EU colleagues on the evolving and potentially encouraging situation. We stand ready to work with the new president to support democratic reforms in Turkmenistan.
We understand that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is discussing with the Turkmen Government the best means of co-operating on these elections in order to promote democratisation in Turkmenistan. We look forward to seeing elections on 11 February that will be a step forward for Turkmenistan.
Derek Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many sites (a) Kent county council and (b) each district council in Kent has designated for Gypsies and Travellers. 
Meg Munn: A list of Gypsy and Traveller sites provided by local authorities in England is published by the Department for Communities and Local Government twice yearly. Copies of the latest publication, Gypsy and Traveller sites provided by local authorities and RSLs in England19th July 2006, have been placed in the Library of the House. An electronic version is available on the Departments website at:
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) what assessment her Department has made of the underlying rate of inflation of local authorities cost bases, broken down by cost base; and if she will make a statement; 
Mr. Woolas: In setting the overall level of Government grant support for local authority revenue spending in 2007-08, we looked carefully with local government at the factors which increased costs in that year and the extent to which those pressures could be mitigated. The overall increase in grant of £3.1 billion or 4.9 per cent. provides sufficient resources to enable authorities to deliver effective services without the need to impose excessive council tax increases. The distribution of formula and specific grants between authorities reflects the circumstances relevant to authorities. Consultation on our proposals for the funding of local authority revenue spending finished on 5 January. We are currently considering carefully all representations.
Dr. Blackman-Woods: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government whether the Government plans to implement the recommendations of the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. 
Meg Munn: The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, chaired by William Stewart, published its report, Mobile Phones and Health (known as the Stewart Report), in May 2000. The report contained recommendations based on a thorough review of the available scientific data on health effects and took into account the evidence received.
The report made a number of recommendations for precautionary action for the use of mobile technology. The Government have accepted the precautionary approach advised by the Stewart Group and have taken forward a range of specific actions.
Where appropriate, these changes were implemented in 2001 by the (then) Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions by the introduction of two sets of regulations and a revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, Telecommunications (PPG8).
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what discussions (a) she and (b) her officials have had with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) on the MABs participation in the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board. 
Mr. Woolas: I have met with the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body (MINAB) steering group, of which the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is a member alongside five other members, to discuss progress on 6 November 2006. No other discussions have been held.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 9 October 2006, Official Report, column 72W, and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) on 11 December 2006, Official Report, column 740W.
Hilary Armstrong: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 3 February 2005, Official Report, column 1011W.
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters were received by her Department from hon. Members in each of the last 12 months; how many such letters were responded to within (a) 10 and (b) 20 days of receipt; how many were answered after 20 days from the date of receipt; and if she will make a statement. 
Hilary Armstrong: The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the performance of Departments in replying to Members and Peers correspondence. The report for 2005 was published on 30 March 2006, Official Report, columns 75-78WS. Information relating to 2006 is currently being collated and will be published as soon as it is ready.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many complaints were lodged with the Information Commissioner in each month between January 2005 and November 2006 about the citing by the Office for National Statistics of Exemption 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to requests for the disclosure of extracts from the 1921 Census records for England and Wales. 
Vera Baird: The Commissioners Office has had three complaints relating to the 1921 census and the citing of section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by the Office for National Statistics. These were received in May 2005, August 2005 and October 2006.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many fines were imposed as a consequence of the non-payment of a penalty notice for disorder in the last three years for which figures are available; and what proportion of such fines have not been paid in full. 
Ms Harman: Data on penalty notices for disorder (PNDs) are collected by the Home Office. In 2004, 63,639 PNDs were issued of which 28,180 were registered as fines. In 2005 146,481 PNDs were issued of which 62,174 were registered as fines. Once a PND is registered as a fine it is enforced in the same way as if it were ordered by the court. The national payment rate for fines is currently at 90 per cent. Court IT systems currently cannot identify the number of PNDs registered as fines that have not been paid in full.
Bridget Prentice: The electoral participation fund is money allocated by the Secretary of State for the implementation of Section 69 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. It is for the reimbursement of money spent by local electoral officers, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. There is £2.5 million available for the fund in the 2007-08 financial year.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Section 36 exemptions were approved by Ministers following Freedom of Information Act requests in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by department. 
Vera Baird: The latest annual figures available are for 2005. The Freedom of Information annual report 2005 shows that 35,097 FOI requests were processed during the year, of which 554 were exempt under Section 36 (1.6 per cent.). The report, which also shows the figures broken down by department, is available in the Libraries of the House.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if her Department will increase the £600 and £450 limits used for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act in line with inflation since the introduction of the Act. 
To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether her Departments proposals to amend Freedom of Information Act
regulations to allow the aggregation of requests for cost purposes will permit such aggregation if an individual makes a series of different requests under the Act on different topics. 
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the definition of a campaign is under her Departments proposals to amend Freedom of Information Act regulations to allow the aggregation of different requests in pursuance of a campaign. 
Bridget Prentice: The power to aggregate two or more requests for information by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign is an existing provision (s.12(4)(b) of The Freedom of Information Act and referred to at regulation (5)(l)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004).
Public authorities will continue to exercise their judgement in determining whether information is being requested in pursuance of a campaign as they do now but it is proposed the existing provision for the aggregation of requests on the same or similar information be extended to include requests on different information.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs by what criteria public authorities will ascertain whether persons are apparently acting in concert of pursuance of a campaign under her Departments proposals to amend Freedom of Information Act regulations. 
Bridget Prentice: The power to aggregate two or more requests for information by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign is an existing provision (s.12(4)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act and referred to at regulation (5)(l)(b) of The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004). Public authorities will continue to exercise their discretion in applying this provision on a case by case basis.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether her Departments proposals to amend Freedom of Information Act regulations to allow officials of a public authority to include the costs of reading, consideration and consultation time in calculations of the appropriate limit will affect the conduct of internal reviews. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|