The environmental charity, Keep Britain Tidy, is DEFRA's delivery partner on litter and local environmental quality issues. Details of the
Government's continued grant to Keep Britain Tidy for the spending review period can be found on the DEFRA website at:
Mr Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of each type of land owned by the Forestry Commission in each parliamentary constituency in Northamptonshire has been (a) sold or (b) leased in each of the last 10 years; and what public access conditions were stipulated in each case. 
Mr Paice: The information on land sales is held at County level. The following table shows those areas of land sold by the Forestry Commission in Northamptonshire in the last 10 years, its status, and where access on foot has been dedicated under the provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
|Name of wood/land sold||Area (Ha)||Status and access|
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on conducting a review under the Chemicals Regulations Directive of data on the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees. 
Mr Paice: Neonicotinoid insecticides are authorised through the rigorous EU pesticides approval process. Products are authorised in the UK after a national risk assessment. The independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) concluded that the 2009 Buglife report highlighted a need for data on the impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides on overwintering of bees in the risk assessment process. This issue had already been identified by regulators and is being addressed through changes to the EU regulatory data requirements. Government scientists have continued to keep up to date with emerging findings and we are supporting further work in this area.
Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether (a) guidance and (b) regulations issued by the Environment Agency have been modified to take into account the use of hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and coal bed methane. 
The Environment Agency is the statutory body responsible for operating the robust regulatory regime that is in place in England and Wales to ensure that any environmental risks from the activities listed are controlled. This regime is backed up by both Government and Environment Agency guidance. The Environment Agency has produced a web page which explains its role in regulating these activities.
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the installation of trickle valves in household water pipes and systems by water companies in England. 
Chi Onwurah: To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Sustainable Development in the Cabinet Office as recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Blunt: Both interpretation services-which relate to the spoken word-and translation services-which relate to the written word-are made available as soon as an apparent need is identified, irrespective of the language involved. Additionally, in relation to criminal proceedings in or having a connection with Wales, interpretation and translation into and from Welsh is provided in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993.
Ann Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many people have been prosecuted under section 49 of the Children Act 1989 for illegally removing, keeping away, assisting or otherwise encouraging a child to run or stay away from a care placement in the last five years. 
Mr Blunt: The following table shows the number of persons proceeded against at the magistrates court under section 49 of the Children Act 1989 in England and Wales for 2005 to 2009 (latest available).
|Number of persons proceeded against at the magistrates court under section 49 of the Children Act 1989 in England and Wales, 2005-09( 1,2,3)|
|(1) The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.|
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
(3) Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July and August 2008.
Justice Statistics Analytical Services-Ministry of Justice
Mr Djanogly: The payment rate is the official measure of the collection of financial penalties. The payment rate for Hendon constituency cannot be provided as HMCS systems do not have this level of detail. Hendon is part of the London region so the payment rate for that region is set out in the following table, as is the payment rate for England.
|England only||London region|
|Payment rate||Payment rate excluding value of admin cancellation||Payment rate||Payment rate excluding value of admin cancellation|
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many employment tribunals have awarded costs to the respondent because a claim was deemed to be frivolous or vexatious in each region in each of the last five years. 
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much has been paid in legal aid and other funds from the public purse to support persons taking action in the European Court of Human Rights against (a) the Government and (b) other public bodies in the UK in each of the last five years. 
Mr Djanogly: Legal aid in England and Wales is administered by the Legal Services Commission (LSC). The LSC does not fund any cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), although it may fund matters before the courts of England and Wales which may eventually conclude in the ECtHR.
(2) how much the UK has paid in compensation as a consequence of judgments made against the UK by (a) the European Court of Human Rights; and (b) the European Court of Justice in each of the last 10 years; 
(3) what the cost to the public purse in (a) legal and (b) other costs was of the UK being a party to an action in (i) the European Court of Human Rights and (ii) the European Court of Justice in each of the last 10 years. 
Mr Djanogly: It will be necessary to make further inquiries and some of the information may not be available in the form requested without incurring disproportionate costs. I will write to the hon. Member with the information that is available as soon as inquiries have been made.
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The content of training for the tribunals judiciary is the responsibility of the senior president of tribunals, not the Government. The Tribunals Service provides resources for the training. All immigration judges receive specific training on diversity and equal treatment issues before sitting, as part of their induction courses. The training focuses on four elements:
Understanding the issues.
The Judicial Studies Board's Equal Treatment Bench Book as a source of information.
Developing judicial skills appropriate to fair treatment and equal treatment issues.
The duty to challenge unacceptable behaviour.
Specific diversity training has been provided to all immigration judges as part of continuation training events and residential refresher training events. Diversity training has now become an integral part of the immigration jurisdictions' training methodology, rather than being treated as an isolated topic.
In response to the 2010 Stonewall report "No Going Back" together with the Supreme Court judgment in HJ (Iran) (FC) (Appellant) and HT (Cameroon) (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) and one other action, training on lesbian, gay and bisexual people and the asylum system has been incorporated into the training delivered to all immigration judges. This training uses materials which have been prepared with the input of both Stonewall and the United Kingdom Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group.
Luciana Berger: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment his Department has made of the effects of a withdrawal of legal aid for employment law cases on the economy of (a) Merseyside, (b) the North West and (c) England and Wales. 
Mr Djanogly: There is no intention to conduct such an assessment. Impact assessments will be published alongside the Government response to the legal aid consultation later this year, however these are unlikely to contain any detailed geographic analysis of impacts.
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 31 January 2011, Official Report, column 564W, on legal aid: homelessness, whether he plans to make legal aid available to appellants against homelessness application decisions made by local authorities. 
As I stated in the answer to which the hon. Member refers, we propose that legal aid would continue to be available for those who are homeless or
threatened with homelessness and are seeking accommodation from the local authority under their statutory obligations. This would include appeals under sections 204 and 204A of the Housing Act 1996.
Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department and its agencies have paid in ex-gratia payments to those convicted of a criminal offence to settle cases prior to litigation in each of the last three years; and how many of those who have been convicted of a criminal offence in each of the last three years have not received such a payment. 
Mr Blunt: The following table details the total amount of compensation aid to prisoners over the last three completed financial years as a result of civil claims, by way of out of court settlement. The figures exclude the associated legal costs, private establishments and compensation paid locally through the internal complaints procedures for lost/damaged property.
Compensation figures paid locally are not collated centrally and to provide these would entail the checking numerous files and would incur disproportionate cost. For purposes of litigation, NOMS does not distinguish between convicted and non convicted prisoners.
Records of claims for compensation where a settlement has not been made, either through the service successfully defending a case at trial, a claim being struck out by a court or withdrawn/abandoned by the claimant, do exist centrally. To collate these details for the last three years would involve disproportionate cost due to the number of such cases and the various categories into which they are broken down.
Robert Halfon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department (i) met and (ii) corresponded with officials or representatives of BP on the proposed prisoner transfer agreement with Libya between September 2007 and February 2008. 
Mr Kenneth Clarke: As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out in his letter to the US Senate, there were three telephone discussions between BP and the then Justice Secretary (Mr Straw) or his office between October and November 2007. The Ministry of Justice has no record of any correspondence between Ministers or officials and BP during that period on the proposed prisoner transfer agreement. However, there is a record of an e-mail from BP to the then Justice Secretary's office of 2 November 2007 in response to a request for information from the Justice Secretary's office. In addition, the then Justice Secretary (Mr Straw) wrote to Tony Hayward on 11 February 2008 in response to an invitation from Tony Hayward dated 30 January, though this was not about the prisoner transfer agreement.
Mr Blunt: It is not possible to supply information about Prison Service spending on transporting prisoners to hospitals in London, without it being at a disproportionate cost. This is because the cost of transporting prisoners to hospital is not calculated discretely but forms part of wider costs for hospital escorts and bedwatches which are divided between the relevant prison and the relevant primary care trust. These costs consist of both the actual vehicle cost (a taxi, ambulance or prison vehicle) and staffing costs (staffing levels for escorts to hospital are determined based on the risk posed by the prisoner).
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration the House of Commons Commission has given to (a) reducing the House of Commons output of printed documents and (b) facilitating use of electronic devices in the Chamber and Committees. 
(a) At its meeting on 13 December 2010, the House of Commons Commission agreed a range of initial savings to be made across the House and PICT in 2011-12 as part of its commitment to reduce the costs of the House Service by at least 17% in real terms by 2014-15. This included recurring annual savings of £1.8 million in the production of printed documents-primarily, the Questions Book, the weekly compendium of early-day motions and some Select Committee written evidence-and will save about 12.5 million printed pages in 2011-12 and thereafter in subsequent years. In some cases, these changes reduce duplication of information which will continue to be printed in another document. The information no longer printed is, and will continue to be, available on the website at:
in most cases before 6 am on the day of publishing. Work is under way, through the procedural data and other programmes, to improve the quality and accessibility of parliamentary material on the web and to shift the emphasis from print to web.
(b) This is a matter for the House itself but the hon. Member may be aware that the Procedure Committee is currently consulting all Members on whether the rules should be updated to reflect technological developments since 2007 and the hon. Member could express his views to that Committee.
Robert Flello: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, what residential accommodation is provided to officers of the House in the form of (a) flats and (b) houses; and how many bedrooms there are in each property. 
2a Canon row-two bedrooms
2 Parliament street-three bedrooms
3 Parliament street-three bedrooms
4 Canon row-four bedrooms
Robert Flello: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much funding the House of Commons Commission allocated to salary costs for the senior management team of the House in the latest period for which figures are available; and how many individuals are included in that team. 
John Thurso: The Administration's senior management team is the Management Board, which has seven members. Details of the salaries paid to the seven individual members of the Management Board can be found in the Remuneration Report included in the House of Commons: Administration 2009-10 Resource Accounts (HC 365). The total funding of salaries for the board for 2009-10 was £804,000.
Robert Flello: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much funding the House of Commons Commission has allocated to the provision of services directly and indirectly to the Speaker's Office. 
John Thurso: The budget funding allocated to the Speaker's Office for 2010-11 for direct services, which includes the salary cost of support staff, is £704,000. Indirect expenditure of around £67,000 is forecast to be incurred on providing office accommodation, security and corporate services.
Lynne Featherstone: The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was formed in May 2010 to make independent assessments of the public finances and the economy for each Budget and pre-Budget report; this includes an assessment of employment levels. The OBR has forecast that employment will rise in each year over the spending review period, reaching 30 million in 2015. The OBR does not breakdown its employment forecasts by gender.
Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities (1) what plans her Department has to bridge the pay gap between male and female employees in small businesses should employers choose not to engage in voluntary equality reporting; 
Lynne Featherstone: On 2 December 2010, Government announced that employers will be asked to help tackle the gender pay gap by publishing equality data about their work force on a voluntary basis. This will increase transparency and help employers identify any equality issues and take appropriate action.
The proposal is aimed at all private and voluntary sector employers, but particularly those with 150 or more employees. As the details of these arrangements are being discussed with partners, we have made no assessment of the number of small businesses likely to engage in reporting.
The Government are also committed to wider measures to address the barriers that women face in the workplace, including women working for small businesses. These include making pay secrecy clauses unenforceable, extending the right to request flexible working to all employees and consulting on a new system of parental leave. We are also taking strong action where there is evidence of discrimination, for example on equal pay.
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport when he expects the results of the report commissioned by the Minister for Tourism and Heritage on the international benchmarking of national lottery administration costs to be published; and if he will make a statement. 
John Penrose: Officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) carried out a comparative study of the administrative costs of some UK-based charities which informed my decision about the level of the administrative cost caps I have set. I have shared this material with the lottery distributors and will be publishing it on the DCMS website shortly.
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what consultations he has undertaken with lottery funding distributors on the reduction in his Department's expenditure on their running costs. 
John Penrose: None, because the administrative costs of distributing lottery funding are funded from the lottery rather than from departmental expenditure. However, the relevant distributors were consulted both directly and through the lottery forum about our plans to reduce their running costs overall.
Ian Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what consultation he has undertaken with community and voluntary groups on the reductions in his Department's expenditure on running costs of lottery funding distributors. 
John Penrose: I do not expect any impact on voluntary and community groups from the agreement achieved with the lottery distributors on administrative cost reduction. Since the administrative costs of distributing lottery funds are themselves funded by the lottery, the aim is to provide more money for the good causes which should benefit all categories of grant recipient.
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) what information his Department holds on trends in participation in each sport funded by his Department in each of the last 10 years; 
(2) what recent assessment he has made of levels of participation in sporting activity (a) in each region, (b) by each ethnic group, (c) by each socio-economic group, (d) by each sex and (e) by each age group; and if he will make a statement; 
Hugh Robertson: The Department makes a regular assessment of participation in sport and active recreation using the Taking Part and Sport England's Active People surveys. The Taking Part survey provides national and regional estimates of sport participation, while Active People provides local level estimates.
The Taking Part survey is a continuous face-to-face survey of adults and children in England. It has been run since 2005 and collects data on many aspects of leisure, culture and sport in England. Findings from the 2009-10 survey were published in August 2010. The report includes detailed analysis of sports participation since 2005, participation by individual sport, region, ethnic group, socio-economic group, sex and age. The full report, along with various other outputs from the Taking Part survey can be found on the DCMS website at:
Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what his Department's budget was for increasing participation in sport in each of the last 10 years; and what plans he has for such budgets in each of the next five years. 
Hugh Robertson: The Department provides grant in aid funding to Sport England, who are responsible for investing this funding, as well as their lottery income, in organisations and projects that will grow and sustain participation in grassroots sport and create opportunities for people to excel at their chosen sport.
|Grant in aid received (£000)|
The Department set out in the comprehensive spending review the grant in aid expected to be allocated to Sport England from 2011-12 to 2014-15. These figures and the current estimate for 2010-11 can be found in the following table.
|Grant in aid proposed (£000)|
|(1) As at Winter Supplementary Estimate|
It is estimated that Sport England's lottery income will rise by over £50 million from 2012-13, as a result of the Government's lottery reforms and the end of transfers to the Olympic Lottery Distribution Fund.
Mark Tami: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what funding his Department has provided for the development of tennis in each of the last five years; and what criteria his Department uses to assess the value for money derived from such expenditure. 
Hugh Robertson: Through Sport England the Department has provided the funding shown in the table to the Lawn Tennis Association's (LTA) Whole Sport Plan (WSP) to support the development of grassroots tennis over the last five years.
|Total WSP funding|
|(1) Figures do not include Community Club Development Programme, Club and Coach funding or any awards made to the LTA through community strands, including the National Sports Foundation. (2) Includes Whole Sport Plan core revenue funding and Whole Sport Plan funding specific for delivery of the UK Coaching Certificate and Coaching. (3) Includes Whole Sport Plan core revenue funding and Whole Sport Plan PESSYP funding.|
In addition the LTA was also paid £122,928 as part of the WSP from 2006-09 for delivery of tennis projects in London following the winding-up of the London Active Partnership. Total funding provided to the LTA by Sport England for the 2005-09 WSP was £21,311,844.
Sport England holds formal reviews with the LTA every six months and maintains regular contact with them throughout that period. Their progress is measured against a set of specific outcomes which can be found in The Whole Sport Plan for the Lawn Tennis Association on the Sport England website:
Mr Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (1) what recent assessment he has made of the (a) accuracy and (b) impartiality of tourist accommodation reviews on websites in developing his plans for the future of the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
(2) what criteria will be used to assess the eligibility and suitability of proposed tourism developments for government grant assistance following the implementation of his plans for the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
(4) whether he has had recent discussions with the (a) Secretary of State for Wales, (b) Secretary of State for Scotland and (c) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his future plans for the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
(5) whether he has had discussions with the (a) Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and (b) third sector organisations on the ability of (i) elderly people and (ii) economically disadvantaged groups to access information on tourism accommodation in formulating his plans for the future of the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
(6) whether he has had discussions with the Trading Standards Institute on redress and evidential issues that may arise in respect of trade descriptions of holiday accommodation following the implementation of his plans for the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
(8) whether he plans to bring forward proposals to amend the provisions of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 for the purposes of implementing his plans for the National Quality Assessment Scheme; 
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has made of spoilt ballots in Scottish elections related to the use of a new electoral system; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each such study. 
David Mundell: The Scotland Office has not produced its own study into spoilt ballot papers at Scottish elections as any such study is the responsibility of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission normally produces a report after each set of elections and these reports may include information on spoilt ballot papers. Following the May 2007 elections, the Electoral Commission commissioned Ron Gould to carry out an independent external review of those elections. The Gould report, 'Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007', did include an analysis of spoilt ballot at the May 2007 elections. This report is available on the Electoral Commission's website.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs his Department has incurred in respect of (a) secure storage, (b) maintenance and (c) staff training associated with Scottish ballot-counting machinery. 
David Mundell: The combined Scottish Parliament and local government elections in May 2007 were electronically counted. For those elections the necessary equipment was hired from an outside contractor. There were therefore no storage and maintenance costs. Staff training in the use of the electronic counting machinery was provided either under that contract or by the relevant returning officer, however specific training in the use of the e-counting equipment is not separately identified.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has undertaken of failures in machine reading of ballots in Scottish elections; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each such study. 
The Scotland Office has not undertaken its own studies into machine reading of ballots in Scottish elections. The Gould report, 'Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007', included
an analysis of the electronic count and counting procedures at the May 2007 elections. This report is available on the Electoral Commission's website.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of each consultancy report commissioned by his Department on the (a) efficacy and (b) reliability of machine ballot-counting in Scotland. 
David Mundell: The Scotland Office has not commissioned any reports into machine ballot counting in Scotland. However, the Gould report, 'Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish Parliamentary and local government elections 3 May 2007', included an analysis of the electronic count and counting procedures at the May 2007 elections. This report is available on the Electoral Commission's website.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs his Department has incurred in respect of the provision of information to the electorate on the (a) operation of and (b) voting system for the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Swire: The Government believe that it is important to develop support across the community for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The process envisaged in the Good Friday agreement to determine the scope for a Bill was taken forward by the previous Government and led to a public consultation. It was clear from this process that there is not as yet agreement on a way forward. The Government will continue to explore next steps.
John McDonnell: To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions he has appealed on the grounds of leniency against a sentence handed out to an individual convicted for offences relating to terrorism since 1 January 2001. 
The data show the offence rather than the circumstances of the offence. They show that the sentences of four offenders convicted of offences contrary to the Terrorism Acts have been referred to the Court of Appeal since 2001.
Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials of his Department allocated work on Afghanistan were based in (a) the UK, (b) Kabul and (c) Helmand province in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Alistair Burt [holding answer 4 February 2011]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on 25 January 2011, Official Report, column 155W. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not hold figures on the number of staff in London allocated work on Afghanistan. The FCO records staff activity according to the overall FCO foreign policy priority staff are working towards, as listed, rather than according to geographical priority:
Safeguard Britain's national security by countering terrorism and weapons proliferation, and working to reduce conflict.
Build Britain's prosperity by increasing exports and investment, opening markets, ensuring access to resources, and promoting sustainable global growth.
Support British nationals around the world through modern and efficient consular services.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from the Co-ordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism on the level of anti-Semitism worldwide; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr Jeremy Browne: We have received no direct reports from the Co-ordination Forum for Countering anti-Semitism. The Community Security Trust (CST), a British charity focused on protecting the Jewish community, contributes to the forum and published their nationwide 2010 Anti-Semitic Incidents Report on 3 February 2011 which will be circulated to the Government and the Police.
The UK is committed to fighting racial discrimination and intolerance. Combating all forms of racism remains an important part of the Government's human rights policy. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's overseas missions have a responsibility to monitor and raise human rights in their host countries and routinely raise our concerns with host Governments. Where possible our embassies take action on individual cases where persecution or discrimination has occurred and lobby for changes in discriminatory practices and laws.
Mr Jeremy Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement of 26 January 2011, Official Report, columns 13-14WS, which sets out some of the impact of the changes to the BBC World Service budget. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend, gave his authority for the closure of five language services, following discussion with the World Service.
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will work with his international counterparts to inform the Government of Burma of concerns about the Burmese Parliament's rules on freedom of speech and scrutiny. 
(i) that the Speaker of the Lower House can reject parliamentary questions that he judges will affect international relations, or which undermine the interests of the state;
(ii) that it is a criminal offence, punishable by at least two years in prison, to publish or disclose information relating to parliamentary business.
We have raised our concerns over the restrictive and undemocratic nature of the regime's political process with our international partners, including in recent weeks with China, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand. We will again underline our concerns at the forthcoming session of the Human Rights Council in March.
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take following the UK-China Human Rights Dialogue on the issue of human rights in China and Tibet. 
Mr Jeremy Browne: We will take a number of steps to follow up the 13-14 January 2011 UK-China human rights dialogue. We will work to develop the links built between UK and Chinese policymakers and experts at the dialogue. We will proactively explore opportunities for follow-up work on the dialogue's two themes, "the role of police in criminal trials" and "minority languages in education". And we will continue to press China to make progress on specific human rights issues, including the situation in Tibet.
The human rights dialogue is just one strand of our continuing engagement with China on human rights. Our project work on human rights in China received £1.5 million of funding in the period 2008-11. This has covered a range of issues, including criminal justice reform and the death penalty. The Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have all raised human rights in their meetings with Chinese Ministers since assuming office, and we will continue to take forward dialogue at this level.
Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what single tender contracts his Department has awarded since his appointment; and what the monetary value is of each contract above the EU public procurement threshold. 
Alistair Burt: Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) policy is to avoid single tender contracts wherever possible and to tender competitively. However in some overseas locations we may be limited to one supplier with the specialist knowledge and expertise to carry out the works required or provide goods and/or services. This may include security related activities in conflict zones or urgently required provisions at posts. Details of all single tender contracts across the FCO network could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
As set out in the ministerial code, Departments will publish, at least quarterly, details of all travel overseas by Ministers. Information for the third quarter will be published as soon as it is ready.
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British embassy in Egypt is taking to ensure the most accurate travel advice is given; and what steps the embassy is taking to overcome recent communication difficulties. 
Our primary concern during recent political unrest in Egypt has been the safety of British nationals. We have kept travel advice under constant review and have made factual updates at least daily. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London is in close contact with colleagues at the embassy who have
been monitoring the situation in Cairo and receiving regular updates from contacts elsewhere in Egypt, including Alexandria, Suez, Luxor and Sharm el Sheikh.
Our embassy used a number of means of communication, including satellite telephones, radios and landlines in order to stay in touch with staff, honorary consuls, wardens and other contacts such as tour operators and British companies, where others have not been available.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the effectiveness of international sanctions programme against Iran; and if he will make a statement. 
Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I have had discussions on the international sanctions programme against Iran with many of our counterparts. It is clear that sanctions are having an impact. Iran is finding it increasingly difficult to acquire access to goods of proliferation concern and is also finding it hard to access international finance, restricting its ability to fund its nuclear programme. We believe these sanctions and other pressures brought Iran back into talks with the EU 3+3 but its disappointing failure to engage on the substance of international concerns mean that pressure will now need to increase.
Simon Danczuk: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 10 January 2011, Official Report, column 227W, on Kashmir, what assessment he has made of the effect of the Indian military presence in Kashmir on the human rights situation in the region. 
Alistair Burt: We are aware of human right abuses on both sides of the line of control including allegations that Indian security forces have used excessive force against violent protestors during the unrest last summer. Prime Minister Singh issued a statement that violations of human rights abuses by security forces in Kashmir would not be tolerated. We have been closely following the initiative of the Indian Government to appoint three interlocutors to help resolve the situation in Indian administered Kashmir. They have made a number of recommendations to the Government including the release of prisoners held without charge, allowing peaceful protest and exercising proper crowd control.
Officials in our high commissions in Islamabad and New Delhi regularly discuss the situation in Kashmir with the Indian and Pakistani Governments and with our contacts in Indian and Pakistani-administered Kashmir. During these discussions, we call for an end to external support for violence in Kashmir and an improvement in the human rights on both sides of the line of control. We also continue to encourage a lasting solution that
takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. But the UK cannot prescribe a solution nor mediate in finding one.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received of the transport of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon; what recent discussions he has had with the government of Iran on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [R] 
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his recent visit to Syria made clear and firm representations to President Assad and Foreign Minister Muallem on the dangers to the stability of the region in allowing the smuggling of weapons to Hizballah. Our officials continue to raise UN Security Council resolution 1701 and the smuggling of weapons to Hizballah at the highest level during our regular dialogue with Syrian counterparts.
We remain concerned that Iran is undermining regional peace and stability, including through weapons transfers. We continue to call on Iran to play a constructive role in the region, including through restoring international confidence in its nuclear programme. We continue to make our views clear through interventions at the UN on UN Security Council resolutions 1701 and 1559.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political situation in Lebanon since December 2010; and if he will make a statement. [R] 
Alistair Burt: Following the withdrawal of the opposition from the Government of National Unity on 12 January, President Sleiman has appointed Najib Mikati as Prime Minister and asked him to form the next government.
We want to see a government formed in accordance with Lebanon's constitution, which commands the broadest possible support of the people of Lebanon and upholds its international obligations including the Special Tribunal and an end to impunity for assassinations. It is important that any new government is committed to restraint and the principle of non-violence as well as a sovereign and independent future for Lebanon.
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what his most recent assessment is of progress in the Middle East Peace Process; what recent discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department have had with (i) the US State Department, (ii) the US Secretary of State, (iii) the government of Israel, (iv) the Palestinian Authority and (v) EU counterparts on the Middle East Peace Process; and if he will make a statement; [R] 
Alistair Burt: The Middle East Peace Process remains among the Government's highest foreign policy priorities. I have recently returned from a visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I underlined our views to both Israeli and Palestinian Ministers and saw for myself the impact of the occupation.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 1 February 2011, negotiations are the only way to achieve the national aspirations of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. We are deeply concerned about the breakdown in talks, and are working closely with the United States and the European Union to see a return to direct negotiations.
We hope that the Quartet meeting on 5 February 2011 was clear that negotiations must resume quickly. The entire international community, including the United States, should support 1967 borders as being the basis for resumed negotiations. The result should be two states, with Jerusalem as the future capital of both, and a fair settlement for refugees.
We are in regular contact with the key players at ministerial and official level. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met with Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman on 24 January 2011 and spoke with Baroness Ashton on 29 January 2011 and US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton on 30 January 2011 about the Middle East Peace Process.
Simon Danczuk: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of (a) new Israeli settler homes built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and (b) Palestinian homes demolished in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. 
Alistair Burt: Figures for settlement construction during 2010 are not yet available. However 1,175 constructions were completed in the first three quarters of 2010. It is not yet clear at this point what number were houses and what were other buildings.
"We have always been clear that settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace. Pushing ahead with this plan would be a deeply unhelpful move and hinder efforts to resume talks between the two parties leading to a two-state solution to this conflict, with Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two states living side by side in peace and security."
Regarding demolitions, we are concerned at what appears to be a sharp increase in the level of demolitions and evictions in East Jerusalem and Area C (Palestinian territory under Israeli military and civilian control). According to UN statistics, 431 structures, including
137 homes, were demolished in 2010, affecting 594 people, including 299 children. These figures represent a 60% increase in demolitions compared to 2009.
Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 1 December 2010, Official Report, columns 830-31W, on Palestinians: international assistance, to what non-governmental organisations in Israel other than in the west bank or Gaza his Department has provided funds in each year since 2003; and for what purposes such payments were made. 
Alistair Burt: Between 2003-04 and 2009-10 financial years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has provided nearly £3.8 million to non-governmental organisations in Israel (other than in the west bank or Gaza). Final funding for the current financial year cannot be confirmed.
(a) help manage or mitigate conflicts;
(b) monitor and promote human rights, access to justice and social welfare; and
(c) strengthen the bi-lateral relationship.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI);
Breaking the Silence;
Council for Peace and Security (CPS);
Economic Co-operation Foundation (ECF);
Friends of the Earth Middle East (FOEME);
Hand in Hand;
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC);
International Palestinian Centre for Research and Information (IPCRI);
Local Government Association (LGA-UK Organisation);
Negev Institute for Strategies of Peace and Development (NISPED);
No Legal Frontiers;
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI);
Women for Human Rights;
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports he has received on the economic situation in Gaza since December 2010; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the level of arms smuggling into Gaza since December 2010; what discussions he has had with his UN counterparts on this issue; and if he will make a statement; 
(4) what assessment he has made of the level of presence of al-Qaeda in the Gaza Strip since December 2010; what recent discussions he has had with the government of Israel on this topic; and if he will make a statement. 
Alistair Burt: Although we no longer assess that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza we have long been clear that the status quo is a tragedy, unsustainable and counterproductive. It hurts the people of Gaza, holds their future hostage, and undermines work to drive reconstruction, development and economic empowerment. At the same time the blockade empowers Hamas through the tunnel economy and damages Israel's long-term security through its corrosive impact on a generation of young Palestinians.
While we welcomed an increase in the quantity and variety of goods entering Gaza more needs to be done to speed up the approvals process for dual-use items so that UN reconstruction projects can get underway. Israel's announcement on exports was also welcome. It is now important that we see real progress on the ground. We will be working with Israel to help it achieve its stated aim of reaching pre-2007 levels of exports this year.
We are aware of reports that Hamas continues to acquire and test a variety of weapons. We have long made it clear that the arming and funding of Hamas, and other Palestinian Rejectionist Groups, is unacceptable. We have received no credible reports that al-Qaeda is operating in Gaza, though clearly there are other extremist groups present in Gaza in addition to Hamas, including those involved in rocket attacks against Israel. We have underlined the need for all groups, including Hamas, to end rocket attacks on Israel.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised these issues with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visited Israel in November. I discussed Gaza at length with the Israeli Co-ordinator for Government Activity in the Territories (COGAT), General Dangot, when he visited the region on 16-19 January 2011.
Mr Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the government of Somalia on the need for further steps to safeguard safety of international travellers. 
Mr Bellingham: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office advises against all travel to Somalia due to the ongoing violence, dangerous levels of criminal activity and general internal insecurity. The Government are working with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) and regional administrations to return stability and peace to the country and to tackle external threats to international travellers. An effective security sector is vital to achieve this and should be embedded in the wider political strategy.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has offered assistance to Tunisia as a result of the political situation in that country. 
Alistair Burt: The main focus of our response has been in Brussels. We have agreed an EU Options Paper on assistance for Tunisia which offers an increase in financial support; technical support to Tunisia's planned electoral process; trade concessions for agricultural products; and the freezing of assets misappropriated by members of the former regime. In parallel with this, the UK has given its political support to the measures announced by the new interim Government to liberalise the country's political system.
I met the Tunisian ambassador on 2 February 2011 and personally assured him of the UK's willingness to support and assist in Tunisia's move towards democracy including through capacity building and parliamentary contact.
Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which organisation will guarantee the pensions of former employees of Western European Union (WEU) after the closure of WEU in 2011. 
Mr Lidington: The Western European Union (WEU) Council, of which the UK is a member, is responsible for ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place for the transfer of the administration of its residual responsibilities-including payment of pensions to former WEU staff-following closure of the WEU later this year.
Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the open market value of the Western European Union premises on Avenue President Wilson in Paris; what share of the value will accrue to the UK when the premises are sold; and when he expects the sale to be completed. 
Mr Lidington: A number of independent valuations are being sought for the market value of the Western European Union (WEU) premises in Paris. The UK share of the value of the premises is approximately 14%. The premises have to be sold back to the French Government, which already owns one-fifth of the premises outright, with the remainder shared among all 10 WEU Council members based on the level of their contribution to the WEU (which reflects gross national income). There is no firm date for the sale to be completed, but we hope it could be done within a year from now.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what planning his Department has completed in relation to the composition of British forces in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of combat troops; and if he will make a statement. 
Nick Harvey: As the Prime Minister has previously stated, we will not have troops in a combat role after 2015 or in the numbers they are currently, although we expect to have troops in training roles beyond that date as part of a broader bilateral relationship.
The Ministry of Defence is necessarily focused on how best we can achieve the transfer of security to the Afghan National Security Forces by the end of 2014. As part of this work we are considering the scope and shape of the UK's enduring relationship with Afghanistan and what the likely role and composition of forces should be beyond 2015. This advice will be presented to the National Security Council in due course.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 24 January 2011, Official Report, column 20W on air force: military bases, what the outcome was of the 2010 planning round before it was re-costed. 
Thomas Docherty: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pupils received the continuity education allowance for each year of study in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of armed forces recruits in each age group withdrew from training before the end of phase two in each of the last five years. 
|FY 2006-07||FY 2007-08||FY 2008-09||FY 2009-10||FY 2010-11|
Due to ongoing validation of data, statistics from FY 2007-08 onwards are provisional and subject to review. Outflow rates for the current financial year are projected figures based on actual outflow for the financial year to date.
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has received on the disparity in minimum service periods for a recruit who enlists at the age of 16 compared with a recruit who enlists at age 18 or above. 
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has received on the retention of an armed forces recruit who no longer wishes to be bound by the enlistment contract he or she entered into while a minor. 
Mr Robathan: In developing the provisions as to a person's enlistment and terms of service, the policy teams worked closely with the Ministry of Defence's in-house legal team and received ongoing advice.
A recruit who was under 18 years of age at the time of enlistment and who wishes to end their service may give at least 14 days' notice to their commanding officer. Such notice can take effect when the recruit has completed 28 days' service and is within six months of enlistment. Additionally, after this time, but before the recruit has attained the age of 18 and three months, a recruit who has made their unhappiness known would not be stopped from leaving the service should they wish to do so. After the age of 18 years and three months, the usual procedures for leaving the relevant service would apply.
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has received on the retention of an armed forces recruit aged under 18 if his or her parent withdraws consent after attestation. 
Mr Robathan: In developing the provisions as to a person's enlistment and terms of service, the policy teams worked closely with the Ministry of Defence's in-house legal team and received ongoing advice.
Provision was made in the Armed Forces (Enlistment) Regulations 2009 for the situation when an appropriate person, such as a parent, did not give or withdrew consent to the enlistment of a person under the age of 18. Such a parent may apply within three months of the enlistment to the Defence Council for a determination that the enlistment is invalid, even if the enlisted person has since attained the age of 18. However, if all necessary consents were obtained prior to the enlistment of a person under the age of 18, and that consent is subsequently withdrawn after the valid enlistment of the person, the enlistment will remain valid.
However, it still remains the case that before any recruit has attained the age of 18 years and three months, they would not be stopped from leaving the service if they were to make their unhappiness known.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department paid in bonuses to civil servants in 2009-10; how many bonuses were paid; what the aggregate monetary value of those bonuses was; and what the highest bonus paid was. 
30 anti-submarine Warfare Merlins;
28 Maritime Wildcats;
25 Commando Merlins; and
six Battlefield Wildcats.
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to revise the Rotary Wing Strategy in the light of the conclusions of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. 
Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the legal status is of his Department's ownership of the buildings, fixed assets and site infrastructure at the US base at RAF Menwith Hill. 
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees of the UK Border Agency were engaged in the enforcement of anti-smuggling controls in respect of products of animal origin in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11. 
Deployment decisions are based on an assessment of the risk. Officers are also supported in their anti-smuggling activities, including those for products of animal origin (POAO), by detector dogs and x-ray technology.
(2) how many of those against whom a control order has been issued since 2005 were foreign nationals; and how many of these returned to their country of origin subsequent to the issuing of such an order; 
Nick Herbert: The Secretary of State for the Home Department reports to Parliament on the exercise of her powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 on a quarterly basis, and additionally on an ad hoc basis if required. The most recent report, published on 16 December 2010, sets out that at 10 December 2010, the most recent date covered by the report, there were eight control orders in force, all of which were in respect of British citizens.
48 individuals have ever been subject to a control order; 20 British nationals and 28 foreign nationals. 10 of the foreign nationals were subject to a control order only until the necessary arrangements were in place to begin deportation proceedings, nine of these 10 had previously been subject to immigration detention under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
All of the individuals currently subject to a control order, and most of those who have ever been subject to a control order, are also subject to a court-imposed anonymity order. This prevents the publication of information that would identify, or would tend to identify, an individual as being subject to a control order. I am therefore not able to confirm how many of the 28 foreign nationals were returned to their country of origin subsequent to their control order being made. Nor can we confirm the number of individuals of each nationality other than British.
Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 provides that (other than in cases of urgency) the Secretary of State must make an application to the High Court for permission to make a non-derogating control order, which the court may give:
'unless it determines that the decision (of the Home Secretary that there are grounds to make that order) is obviously flawed'.
I have taken 'applications' and 'requests' for a control order to refer to such applications to the court. I am not able to confirm how many such applications the Secretary of State has made for permission to make a control order, or how many of these have been granted, as this information has not been collated.
I have taken 'provisional orders' to mean orders that were made for a contingency but not served. The quarterly reports to Parliament confirm the making and revocation, expiry or quashing of control orders, and now routinely note where an order has been made and not served. I refer the right hon. Member to the statements dated:
16 December 2010
16 September 2010
21 June 2010
16 March 2010
15 December 2009
16 September 2009
15 June 2009
12 March 2009
15 December 2008
15 September 2008
12 June 2008
13 March 2008
12 December 2007
17 September 2007
21 June 2007 (two statements)
24 May 2007
22 March 2007
16 January 2007
11 December 2006
11 September 2006
12 June 2006
13 March 2006
12 December 2005
10 October 2005
16 June 2005
The reports do not confirm why the orders were not served, including whether the order was made on a contingency basis, given the national security sensitivity of such cases and the need to preserve the anonymity of individuals against whom a control order has been made. I am not therefore able to confirm the numbers of contingency control orders that have been made or the dates on which they were made.
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people on control orders absconded in the latest period for which figures are available; and how many of these were subsequently caught; 
Nick Herbert: The Secretary of State for the Home Department reports to Parliament on the exercise of her powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 on a quarterly basis, and additionally on an ad hoc basis if required. No individuals absconded from a control order in the latest period (11 September 2010 to 10 December 2010).
Seven individuals have absconded from control orders since the regime's introduction in 2005, with the most recent abscond taking place in June 2007. One individual handed himself in to the police following his abscond. In relation to the locations and status of the other six individuals who absconded, I refer the right hon. Member to written ministerial statements published on:
11 December 2006;
16 January 2007;
22 March 2007;
24 May 2007;
21 June 2007 (two statements);
17 September 2007; and
13 March 2008.
These statements give as much information as the Government can provide about the individuals concerned given the national security sensitivity of these cases and the need to avoid publishing any information that could lead to the identification of an individual who is subject to a court-imposed anonymity order.
The written ministerial statements give as much information as can be provided about breaches of control orders and, where applicable, action taken. The information
given is limited for national security reasons and in order to avoid prejudicing any law enforcement interests. In addition to the statements referred to above I refer the right hon. Member to the statements published on:
16 December 2010;
16 September 2010;
21 June 2010;
16 March 2010;
15 December 2009;
16 September 2009;
15 June 2009;
12 March 2009;
15 December 2008;
15 September 2008;
12 June 2008;
12 December 2007;
11 September 2006;
12 June 2006;
13 March 2006;
12 December 2005;
10 October 2005; and
16 June 2005.
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate she has made of her Department's expenditure on legal matters relating to control orders since such orders were introduced; 
Nick Herbert: The amount spent by the Home Office on legal matters associated with control orders in each financial year starting from April 2006 until the end of March 2010 is set out in the following table. These figures include the costs of the Home Office's own legal representation and advice, the costs of the special advocates and the Special Advocates Support Office and meeting the legal costs of the controlled persons where this has been ordered by the court. The figure for the financial year 2006-07 is based partially on estimates. All figures are rounded to the nearest £100.
|Amount spent by the Home Office on legal matters relating to control orders|
It is not possible to provide the amount spent on legal matters relating to control orders in the financial year 2005-06 (the year in which control orders were introduced) because of the way the costs have been accounted for. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The enforcement of control orders is carried out by the police. The cost is managed from within each police force's overall budget, which includes specific funding for counter-terrorism policing. The Home Office does not have an estimate of the cost of enforcing each control order for each police force. I refer the right hon. Member to the written ministerial statements on the allocation of counter-terrorism funding for police authorities for each financial year from 2005-06 to 2010-11 which were published on, respectively:
2 December 2004;
5 December 2005;
28 November 2006;
6 December 2007;
26 November 2008;
26 November 2009; and
13 December 2010.
Nick Herbert: Under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (PTA) my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is required to report to Parliament on a quarterly basis on the exercise of the control order powers during that period. This quarterly update includes the number of appeals lodged under the PTA and the outcome of court judgments in relation to control orders.
Every time a control order is imposed by the Secretary of State, the individual concerned is entitled to an automatic review by the High Court. Section 3(10) of the PTA provides that at such a hearing the court must review (a) the Secretary of State's decision that the requirements for making an order were met and (b) her decision on the imposition of each of the obligations in the order. The individual may request the discontinuance of these proceedings, but otherwise the hearing under section 3(10) of the PTA will proceed. This means that individuals who have been subject to more than one control order may have had more than one court review under section 3(10) of the PTA, and as a result some individuals are included more than once in the following figures.
11 control orders have been upheld by the Court at the review under section 3(10) of the PTA and 14 have been quashed or revoked. Of the 14 that have been quashed or revoked, four were found to have been properly imposed but no longer necessary at the time of the hearing.
The combined total number of orders upheld, quashed and revoked (25) is lower than the total number of individuals subject to control orders (48 as of 10 December 2010, the last date covered by the most recent written ministerial statement published on control orders) for a number of reasons. These include the fact the figure (25) does not include cases where the section 3(10) hearing has yet to be heard, cases where the controlled individual either discontinued their proceedings or absconded from the control order before the hearing took place or cases where the Secretary of State conceded that she could not make sufficient disclosure to comply with her obligations under article 6 and so revoked the control order.
The judgments of these reviews under section 3(10) of the PTA have frequently been subject to appeal to the higher courts by both the individual subject to the control order and the Secretary of State. The numbers given refer only to the final outcome of a review, so, for example, if a control order was upheld by the High Court but revoked on appeal, it is recorded as having been revoked. Where a High Court decision has been made and that decision is subject to an appeal (which has yet to be heard), the decision of the High Court is reflected in the figures.
The figures recorded above also exclude those cases where the original decision has been overturned and the case has been remitted to the High Court to be heard again and this hearing has yet to take place. The Secretary of State has revoked a small number of historical control orders rather than make damaging disclosure required under article 6 (right to a fair trial), and these have not been included as having been upheld or rejected by the courts because the reviews were not completed. (The figures also exclude interim procedural hearings that have taken place, such as case management and disclosure hearings-at which no substantive decision on the control order was made).
Section 10 of the PTA makes provision for an individual to appeal against (a) the renewal of a control order, (b) a modification to an obligation in a control order made without the individual's consent, (c) the decision to refuse an individual's request for the modification of an obligation and (d) the decision to refuse an individual's request for the revocation of a control order.
As reported in the quarterly written ministerial statements, 77 appeals have been lodged under section 10 of the PTA since it came into force on 11 March 2005. Some individuals have submitted more than one appeal under section 10 which means that the total number of appeals lodged does not match the total number of individuals who have ever been subject to a control order (48). These appeals were in many cases heard at the same time as the review under section 3(10) of the PTA and the outcome recorded in a single judgment; in other cases several section 10 appeals have been heard together where they have related to the same individual. For this reason, it is not possible to provide separate figures for the outcome of each section 10 appeal.
As set out above, the PTA makes provision for the automatic review of a control order by the High Court, and for appeals against various control order decisions. Exceptionally, two individuals made applications for judicial review against modifications to their control
order (rather than pursuing an appeal under section 10 of the PTA). Both were refused permission to bring a Judicial Review.
Each Court review of the decision to impose a control order and each section 10 appeal begins with an open session. In addition, there is usually a closed session during which sensitive information, which it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose in open, can be examined by the Court with the assistance of the special advocates representing the interests of the individual. Following the June 2009 House of Lords judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AF & Others  UKHL 28, an individual subject to a control order must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him for him to give effective instructions to the special advocate.
The Home Office does not hold figures for the number of hearings relating to control orders that were held in (a) open and (b) closed as movement from open into closed and back again is often fluid and can depend on issues that arise during the course of a hearing, or even a single session.
Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many control orders issued since such orders were introduced have included an element of (a) house arrest and (b) curfew; 
Nick Herbert: The obligations a person subject to a control order is required to adhere to can change throughout the life of the control order and are tailored to the circumstances of the individual case at the time they are in place. In order to protect individuals' court-imposed anonymity and for reasons of national security we cannot provide full details of obligations in each case. I refer the right hon. Member to Lord Carlile of Berriew's annual reports on the operation of the control order powers dated:
2 February 2006;
19 February 2007;
18 February 2008;
3 February 2009; and
1 February 2010.
Of the 48 individuals ever made subject to a control order, 43 have been subject to a curfew for some or all of the time their order was in force. The longest curfews ever imposed were 18 hours per day; these were put in place before the courts judged in 2006 and 2007 that curfews of this length amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The longest curfew that can currently be imposed under a non-derogating control order is 16 hours per day. Where curfews have been imposed, not all of them have been or are of that length. The curfew imposed in any case depends on the particular risk posed by the
individual concerned. Some individuals have had curfews of only two or three hours per day imposed. Most curfews have been or are between these two extremes.
Mr Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been subject to a control order since the implementation of the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; and how many of those were subsequently charged with acts relating to terrorism; 
Nick Herbert [holding answers 13 and 31 January 2011]: 48 individuals have ever been subject to a control order. All of the individuals currently subject to a control order, and most of those who have ever been subject to a control order, are also subject to a court-imposed anonymity order. This prevents the publication of information that would identify, or would tend to identify, an individual as being subject to a control order. Since clarifying the number of those who have subsequently been charged would-together with information already in the public domain about individuals who have been charged with such offences-tend to breach the court-imposed anonymity order, it is not possible to provide this information.
Naomi Long: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate she has made of the costs to her Department of (a) administering control orders and (b) defending legal actions in relation to control orders since their introduction. 
Nick Herbert: The cost to the Home Office of administering control orders and defending legal actions in relation to control orders in each financial year starting from April 2006 until the end of March 2010 is set out in the following table.
The legal costs include the costs of the Home Office's own legal representation and advice, the costs of the special advocates and the Special Advocates Support Office and meeting the legal costs of the controlled persons where this has been ordered by the court. The cost of administering control orders includes the cost of accommodation, subsistence, council tax, telephone and utility bills for controlled persons; and the staff and administrative costs to the Home Office of staff working on control orders. The figure for the financial year 2006-07 is based partially on estimates. All figures are rounded to the nearest £100.
It is not possible to provide the amount spent on matters relating to control orders in the financial year 2005-06 (the year in which control orders were introduced) because of the way the costs have been accounted for. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|(1) 2006-07 to 2009-10|
Nick Herbert: The framework for the making, expiry and renewal of control orders is set out in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend, may not renew an expired control order but can renew an order before it expires. She may also make a new control order against the subject of a previously expired order. The Secretary of State takes decisions in individual cases in accordance with the statutory framework.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|