|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funds have been allocated by HM Treasury to his Department to promote British tourism; and how these funds have been affected by the pre-Budget report. 
James Purnell: My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the overall DCMS settlement on 9 October. The funding allocation for tourism will be announced shortly, following discussion with VisitBritain.
Margaret Hodge: We have a small central team of four economists who provide support for the department as a whole including tourism policy. It is difficult to estimate precisely how much time is spent specifically on tourism policy but officials estimate that it is less than one full time member of staff.
Margaret Hodge: VisitBritain currently operates 19 offices in the following countries: BrazilSao Paulo, CanadaToronto, USNew York and Los Angeles, AustraliaSydney, Hong Kong, IndiaDelhi, JapanTokyo, Singapore, UAEDubai, BelgiumBrussels, DenmarkCopenhagen, FranceParis, GermanyBerlin, HungaryBudapest, ItalyMilan, NetherlandsAmsterdam, SpainMadrid and Sweden.
VisitBritain have representatives in the following countries: ChinaBeijing and Shanghai, IndiaMumbai and Bangalore, MalaysiaKuala Lumpur, South KoreaSeoul, ThailandBangkok, South AfricaJohannesburg, GreeceAthens, NorwayOslo, PortugalLisbon and RussiaMoscow.
They have a virtual presence in the following countries where there is a localised website and they undertake activities and campaigns which are managed from/by the countries listed in brackets: Argentina and Mexico (managed from Brazil); New Zealand (managed from Australia); Austria (managed from Germany); Czech Republic (managed from Hungary); Finland (managed from Sweden); Poland (managed from Hungary); Switzerland (managed from Germany).
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to persuade the United States of America to reverse its policy of spraying the poppy crop in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Howells: Counter narcotics policy and implementation, including opium poppy elimination, is the responsibility of the Government of Afghanistan. We work very closely with the US to support the Afghan government on implementing their National Drug Control Strategy. The Government of Afghanistan opposes the use of aerial and ground based spraying to eradicate opium poppy.
no herbicidal spray program would be implemented without the consent of the Government of Afghanistan.
The UK continues to support the piloting of ground-based spraying, subject to the agreement of the Afghan government, to test its efficacy and impact. It should be well explained to local populations and targeted in areas of Afghanistan where the security situation permits and there is good access to legal livelihoods for farmers. At present, we judge that the disadvantages of aerial spraying outweigh the benefits. We have made our position clear to both the Afghan government and the US.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 9 October 2007, Official Report, columns 27-8WS, on Iraq: assistance to locally employed staff, whether he has considered extending the scheme to Afghanistan. 
Dr. Howells: Locally engaged Afghan staff working for our armed forces and civilian missions in Afghanistan have made an invaluable contribution to the UKs efforts to help support the spread of security, stability and development in their country. I acknowledge their contribution with gratitude. But given the difference in circumstances between them and their colleagues in Iraq, there are no plans for a similar scheme of assistance.
Colin Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role his Department played in the visit to the UK of Bolivian opposition Senator Oscar Oritz Anselo; which elements of Mr. Anselos programme have been organised by his Department; what future meetings are planned between his Department and Bolivian opposition leaders; what steps he is taking to develop relations with the democratically-elected President and government of Bolivia; and how many visits his Department has facilitated to the UK on the part of Bolivian government representatives since May 2006. 
Dr. Howells: Through our Embassy in La Paz, Senator Oscar Ortiz asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to make parliamentarians, and others with an interest in Bolivia, aware of his visit to the UK. We responded to this request and also informed the Bolivian Embassy in London.
Since May 2006 the FCO has not facilitated any visits to the UK on behalf of the Bolivian government. However, Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca made a private visit to the UK in June 2007. The FCO was informed of this visit shortly beforehand and responded to a request to arrange a call on my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn).
Our relationship with Bolivia continues to develop. We maintain a dialogue with the Bolivian Government and also welcome engagement with all political parties in Bolivia. The UK works with the Bolivian government, both bilaterally and through the EU, on a range of issues, including counter-narcotics, climate change, security sector reform and energy. The UK also supports projects in these and other areas in Bolivia, at national and local government level.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what oversight his Department has of the granting of belongers status, or other comparable status, by overseas territory governments to people from outside the territories; and if he will make a statement. 
Meg Munn: Responsibility for immigration, including the granting of Belonger, or equivalent, status, has been devolved to overseas territories governments. The Government would not seek to intervene in the immigration policy of a territory unless it breached constitutional or other legal provisions or international obligations such as those in the European Convention on Human Rights, or it was leading to serious concerns about the good governance of the territory.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reasons for variations in the web content of the websites of overseas territories on (a) the list of Human Rights Conventions with which they are expected to comply and (b) details of the gross domestic product per head of population. 
Meg Munn: The Overseas Territories Governments are responsible for the material on their websites and for keeping it up to date. This includes the provision of information on human rights conventions and of data such as gross domestic product per capita.
Although some reconstruction work is now being undertaken, much of the Chechen Republic's urban and rural infrastructure was destroyed in fighting between separatist rebels and federal troops allied with local forces loyal to Moscow. While large-scale military
action by federal troops has now ceased, low intensity fighting involving local Chechen forces continues. There are frequent reports of explosions and shootings in the republic and elsewhere in Southern Russia carried out by rebel groups.
Russian forces claim to have eliminated many rebel groups and fighters, including the death of Shamil Basayev in 2006. But long-term security in the region is undermined by poor social and economic conditions as well as credible reports of widespread human rights violations by all sides.
Instability within Chechnya has affected neighbouring republics, particularly Ingushetia and Dagestan, where the frequency of violent incidents has increased in recent years. The situation in Chechnya and the wider North Caucasus remains an issue of importance in our on-going bilateral and EU discussions with Russia. With EU partners, we raised the latest developments in Chechnya with the Russian Government at the EU-Russia Human Rights Consultations on 3 October 2007.
Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Russia on co-operation with United Kingdom authorities to address the conflict in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jim Murphy: The Government, with EU partners, regularly discusses the situation in Chechnya with the Russian authorities, including in the context of both UK-Russia and EU-Russia Human Rights Consultations. I welcome the recent commencement of the €20 million technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States Programme, agreed under the UKs EU presidency in 2005, which demonstrates that Russia and the international community are willing to work together to address the root causes of instability which drive conflict in the region. Through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, we are working with local partners in the region, among other things, to build capacity and conflict awareness among local officials, police and other law enforcement bodies, as well as to help train Russian prison officers.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all gifts made by former UK Ambassador to the United States Sir David Manning to members of the US Administration which were financed by the UK Exchequer; what the cost was of each gift; and if he will make a statement. 
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new (a) laptops, (b) mobile telephones and (c) personal
digital assistant devices his Department bought for the use of departmental Ministers following each Cabinet reshuffle since 1997; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jim Murphy: This information is not held centrally, as Foreign and Commonwealth Office departments are responsible for their own budgets. To collate the information requested by the hon. Member would incur disproportionate cost.
Jeremy Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the merits of retaining a Legalisation Office of his Department in central London and opening a second Legalisation Office outside London to deal with postal and DX applications for legalisation. 
Dr. Howells: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Legalisation Office needs to move from its current premises in the Old Admiralty Building because of security concerns, lack of space as the business expands, and the FCO's commitment to move positions out of London under the Lyons relocation programme. The additional space for an expanded operation will allow us to improve significantly the current levels of service.
We explored options outside central London, notably Birmingham, Milton Keynes and Bristol, to allow for the much needed expansion of the office, an improved office environment and a readily available employment pool, while at the same time addressing security concerns and our Lyons relocation commitments.
Our initial assessment pointed to moving the entire operation outside London. FCO officials met with a group of representatives from a cross-section of the Legalisation Office's customers in the FCO on 3 July. Following this initial meeting and subsequent discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and our key stakeholders, we received strong representations for a continued presence in London.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of (a) written guidance and instructions provided to officials in his Department who draft parliamentary answers and (b) the declaration required to be made by such officials on submitting drafts for ministerial approval; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Jim Murphy: The information requested by my hon. Friend will be placed in the Library of the House. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are not required to sign a declaration on submitting draft answers for ministerial approval.
Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Departments (a) administrative expenditure, (b) other current expenditure, (c) grant expenditure, (d) operating appropriations in aid (A in A), (e) capital and (f) non-operating A in A outturn, broken down in (i) near cash and (ii) non-cash terms, was for financial years 2001-02 to 2006-07. 
Mr. Jim Murphy: The Part II: Subhead detail table in Main Estimates for each year provide outturn data for one prior year, but this is only broken down to net total resources for each section in the table.
There are no other published documents that provide a near-cash/non-cash breakdown of this data,
though the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) publication (copies of which are in the Library of the House) provides a useful near-cash/non-cash Departmental Expenditure Limit split (see Tables 1.6, 1.7 and 2.1 of PESA 2007 for data for years 2001-02 to 2007-08). However, we have been able to provide a near-cash/non-cash split against administrative expenditure, other current expenditure, grant expenditure, operating appropriations in aid (A in A), capital and non-operating A in A outturn, broken down in near cash and non-cash terms, for financial years 2001-02 to 2006-07 by taking information from our 2006-07 Resource Accounts along with data that underlies our Departmental Report common core tables. This is set out as follows:
|Voted expenditure( 1)|
|(1) Data for 2001-02 to 2005-06 is taken from information underlying our Departmental Report common core tables and is on an internally consistent basis. Data for 2006-07 is taken from Resource Accounts. Resource Accounts and Parliamentary Supply Estimates do not completely reflect Treasury re-classifications to previous years. Detailed notes on re-classifications have been provided in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Reports for the years in question.|
(2) All non-cash for the above years has been counted as administrative expenditure.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|