Table 2: Number of additional days of imprisonment awarded to people in Wetherby under 18 Young Offender Institution by an outside adjudicator for breaches of prison rules in each month from January 2010 to April 2012
  Number

2010

 

January

0

February

0

March

0

April

0

May

0

June

0

July

0

August

0

September

0

October

0

November

0

December

0

2011

 

January

0

February

0

March

0

April

0

May

0

June

0

July

0

August

0

September

0

October

28

November

0

December

0

2012

 

January

0

February

18

March

0

April

7

Notes: 1. This table also includes 18-year-olds at Wetherby under 18 YOI. 2. These figures have been drawn from YOI records, as such they are subject to possible recording errors and can be subject to change over time.

16 May 2012 : Column 183W

16 May 2012 : Column 184W

Table 3 : Ethnicity of each person awarded additional days of imprisonment by outside adjudicators in Wetherby under 18 Young Offender Institution in each month from January 2010 to April 2012
  W1 W2 W9 M1 M2 M3 M9 A1 A2 A3 A9 B1 B2 B9 O1 O9 Total

2010

                                 

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

2011

                                 

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

1

1

November

December

2012

                                 

January

February

1

1

March

April

1

1

Notes: 1. This table also includes 18-year-olds at Wetherby under 18 YOI. 2. Ethnicity key: W1: White – British W2: White – Irish W9: White - Other White M1: Mixed - White and Black Caribbean M2: Mixed - White and Black African M3: Mixed - White and Asian M9: Mixed - Other Mixed A1: Asian or Asian British - Indian A2: Asian or Asian British - Pakistani A3: Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi A9: Asian or Asian British - Other Asian B1: Black or Black British - Caribbean B2: Black or Black British - African B9: Black or Black British - Other Black O1: Chinese - Chinese O9: Other Ethnic Group - Any Other 3. These figures have been drawn from YOI records, as such they are subject to possible recording errors and can be subject to change over time.

Cabinet Office

Accountancy

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many members of staff in each of the last three years working for the Department have a recognised accountancy qualification; and how many such staff (a) have the Associate Chartered Accountant qualification and (b) are working towards a recognised accountancy qualification. [107594]

Mr Maude: The Cabinet Office reports numbers of finance staff to HM Treasury as part of a yearly review of Finance Staff across Government. The reported figures for Cabinet Office, for qualified accountants, for the last three years' returns are:

  Number

2011

19

2010

12

2009

9

16 May 2012 : Column 185W

Details of the professional accounting bodies of which accountants are members and of the numbers studying, are not collected.

Alcoholic Drinks

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate he has made of the average number of alcohol units consumed by each (a) socio-economic, (b) ethnic and (c) age group in each of the last 10 years [106689]

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated 14 May 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what estimate has been made of the average number of alcohol units consumed by each (a) socio-economic, (b) ethnic and (c) age group in each of the last 10 years. [106689]

Table 1 provides figures for (a) the average weekly alcohol units consumed by the three-class National Statistics Socio-economic Classification (NS-SEC), including sub-divisions of each class, for the years 2002, 2005 to 2006 and 2008 to 2010. Figures for the average weekly alcohol units consumed by NS-SEC for the year 2001 are not available because of occupational classification changes. Figures for the years 2003, 2004 and 2007 were not routinely reported and so could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

16 May 2012 : Column 186W

Figures for (b) the average number of alcohol units consumed by ethnic group are not reported, since small sample sizes in the underlying data would render the results unreliable.

Table 2 provides figures for (c) the average weekly alcohol units consumed by age group for the years 2001, 2002 and 2005 to 2010. Figures for the years 2003 to 2004 were not routinely reported and so could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

Figures for average alcohol consumption in 2011 and 2012 are not yet available. Figures for 2011 are expected to be published in January 2013.

The General Lifestyle Survey drinking statistics are based on information provided by respondents aged 16 and over living in private households in Great Britain. The survey defines an adult as someone aged 16 years and over. A unit of alcohol is defined as 10 ml of pure ethanol. This is equivalent to a standard measure of spirits (25ml at 40% Alcohol by Volume (ABV)).

The latest published figures on average alcohol consumption in Great Britain are included in the General Lifestyle Survey Overview Report, available on the National Statistics website at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ghs/general-lifestyle-survey/2010/index.html

It is important to note that social surveys consistently record lower levels of consumption than would be expected from HMRC data on alcohol sales. This may be due to underreporting of alcohol consumption by respondents. There was also a methodological change introduced in 2006 which modified the approach to derivation of units of alcohol from Alcohol by volume assumptions about certain drinks sold on licensed and Off-license premises, and also assumptions about wine glass sizes. These changes were estimated to result in an increase in average alcohol consumption by approximately a third compared with the derivations based on the older methodology.

Table 1. Average weekly alcohol consumption (units), by sex and socioeconomic class based on the current or last job of the household reference person 2002, 2005-2006 and 2008-2010, Great Britain (1, ) (2,) () (3,) () (4,) () (5)
Socio-economic classification of household reference person 2002 2005 2006 2006 (new method) 2008 2009 2010

Men

             

Managerial and professional

17.3

15.7

14.9

19.8

17.7

17.5

16.8

Large employer and higher managerial

19.9

16.5

13.2

22.9

19.3

19.9

19.3

Higher professional

15.7

14.4

14.9

17.8

16.6

17.3

16.4

Lower managerial and professional

17.3

16.0

15.2

19.6

17.7

17.0

16.3

               

Intermediate

17.9

16.8

16.1

19.9

17.2

15.8

15.6

Intermediate

17.3

14.2

16.7

19.3

16.2

15.0

14.8

Small employers/own account workers

18.3

18.4

14.4

20.4

17.9

16.3

16.1

               

Routine and manual

16.8

15.4

14.1

16.7

15.5

15.4

15.4

Lower supervisory and technical

18.5

15.9

13.4

17.2

15.3

15.4

15.5

Semi-routine

16.2

13.9

14.5

16.0

15.1

14.9

16.7

Routine

15.5

16.2

8.9

17.0

15.9

15.9

13.9

Total

17.2

15.8

14.8

18.7

16.6

16.3

15.9

               

Women

             

Managerial and professional

8.3

7.2

7.0

10.7

10.2

9.7

9.2

Large employer and higher managerial

9.4

8.0

7.3

12.5

11.6

11.7

11.2

Higher professional

8.3

7.6

6.6

11.2

10.3

9.8

10.0

Lower managerial and professional

8.1

6.9

5.6

9.9

9.8

9.2

8.5

               

Intermediate

7.5

6.7

6.2

9.1

7.6

7.8

7.2

Intermediate

7.1

6.0

6.9

8.3

6.6

6.8

6.7

Small employers/own account workers

8.0

7.3

5.8

10.1

8.7

9.1

7.9

               

Routine and manual

6.5

5.4

5.3

7.1

6.5

6.6

6.2

Lower supervisory and technical

7.6

5.9

5.5

7.9

7.0

7.1

7.5

Semi-routine

6.9

5.8

4.7

7.5

6.5

6.7

6.1

16 May 2012 : Column 187W

16 May 2012 : Column 188W

Routine

5.2

4.6

4.6

6.1

5.9

6.1

5.2

Total

7.6

6.5

6.2

9.0

8.2

8.0

7.6

               

All Persons

             

Managerial and professional

12.7

11.3

10.8

15.1

13.8

13.5

12.9

Large employer and higher managerial

14.7

12.3

10.4

17.6

15.5

15.7

15.2

Higher professional

12.3

11.1

10.5

14.6

13.6

13.8

13.4

Lower managerial and professional

12.4

11.1

9.2

14.4

13.4

12.8

12.1

               

Intermediate

12.2

11.2

10.6

14.0

11.9

11.4

11.0

Intermediate

10.9

9.1

11.9

12.5

10.3

9.8

9.8

Small employers/own account workers

13.3

12.9

10.2

15.3

13.4

12.7

12.1

               

Routine and manual

11.3

10.0

9.4

11.6

10.6

10.7

10.5

Lower supervisory and technical

13.1

11.1

8.7

12.7

11.2

11,4

11.7

Semi-routine

10.8

9.2

9.3

11.0

10.0

10.1

10.4

Routine

10.0

10.0

6.3

11.2

10.7

10.7

9.5

Total

12.1

10.8

10.2

13.5

12.1

11.9

11.5

(1) Data for 2005 includes data for the last quarter of 2004/5 due to survey change from financial year to calendar year. (2) Results from 2006 include longitudinal data. (3) Full-time students, members of the Armed Forces, the long-term unemployed and those who have never worked are not shown as separate categories but are included in the totals. (4) Figures for 2006 onwards were produced using the updated methodology for converting volumes of alcohol to units assuming an average wine glass size: This change in method, applied from 2006 increases the average weekly alcohol consumption by approximately one-third. This increase is also proportionally greater for women due to differences between men and women in the types of drinks consumed. Figures for 2006 using both the original and new methods are presented here for comparison purposes. (5) Figures for 2008-2010 were produced using the updated methodology including data on wine glass size. Source: General Lifestyle Survey, Office for National Statistics
Table 2. Average weekly alcohol consumption (units) in Great Britain, by sex and age: 2001-2002 and 2005-2010, Great Britain (1,) () (2,) () (3,) () (4)
Persons aged 16 and over
  2000 2001 2002 2005 2006 2006 (new method) 2008 2009 2010

Men

                 

16-24

25.9

24.8

21.5

18.2

16.4

18.6

16.3

14.8

14.1

25-44

17.7

18.4

18.7

16.2

15.6

19.7

16.8

16.4

16.6

45-64

16.8

16.1

17.5

17.7

16.0

20.8

18.7

18.7

17.8

65 and over

11.0

10.8

10.7

10.4

10.4

13.5

13.2

12.7

12.5

Total

17.4

17.2

17.2

15.8

14.8

18.7

16.6

16.3

15.9

                   

Women

                 

16-24

12.6

14.1

14.1

10.9

9.0

10.8

10.3

10.3

8.4

25-44

8.1

8.3

8.4

7.1

6.8

10.1

9.6

8.7

8.1

45-64

6.2

6.8

6.7

6.3

6.2

9.8

9.0

8.9

8.8

65 and over

3.5

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.5

5.1

4.7

4.6

4.6

Total

7.1

7.5

7.6

6.5

6.2

9.0

8.4

8.0

7.6

                   

All persons

                 

16-24

19.3

19.4

17.6

14.3

12.5

14.6

13.1

12.5

11.1

25-44

12.9

13.3

13.3

11.3

11.0

14.6

12.9

12.3

12.2

45-64

11.4

11.3

11.9

11.7

10.9

15.0

13.6

13.6

13.1

16 May 2012 : Column 189W

16 May 2012 : Column 190W

65 and over

6.7

6.6

6.8

6.5

6.5

8.7

8.5

8.2

8.1

Total

12.0

12.1

12.1

10.8

10.2

13.5

12.2

11.9

11.5

(1) Data for 2005 includes data for the last quarter of 2004/5 due to survey change from financial year to calendar year. (2) Figures from 2006 were produced using the updated methodology for converting volumes of alcohol to units assuming an average wine glass size; This change increases the average weekly alcohol consumption by approximately one-third. This increase is also proportionally greater for women due to differences between men and women in the types of drinks consumed. Figures for 2006 using both the original and new methods are presented here for comparison purposes. (3) Results from 2006 onwards include longitudinal data. (4) Figures for 2008 - 2010 were produced using the updated methodology including data on wine glass size. Source: General Lifestyle Survey, Office for National Statistics

Charities

Mr Thomas: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many charitable trusts and foundations were investigated by the Charity Commission for having made insufficient payouts in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107657]

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Charity Commission. I have asked the Commission's chief executive to reply.

Letter from Sam Younger, dated 16 May 2012:

I have been asked to respond to your written Parliamentary Question on how many charitable trusts and foundations were investigated by the Charity Commission for having made insufficient payouts in each of the last five years [107657].

Our investigations examine the application of charitable funds in a wide variety of contexts and we do not monitor the issue separately. In the majority of cases, it is interconnected with other regulatory concerns.

In 2008, we examined and published a report on 12 linked cases involving financial institutions which had established charitable trusts as part of securitisation schemes. Other than these, we are not able manually to identify investigations over this period where the amount or proportion of funds that was applied directly to charitable activity was the sole or principal regulatory concern.

Trustees are responsible for all aspects of the administration of a charity and must ensure that charitable funds are spent for the purposes for which they were raised and for the benefit of the public at large. There is no fixed definition of what constitutes an insufficient payout. For example, it is sometimes acceptable for a charity to spend nothing on charitable activity for a period provided it has a well-founded plan for raising funds and carrying out charitable work.

Charity Commission

Stuart Andrew: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much the Charity Commission spent on (a) conferences, (b) staff away days and (c) sports events in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12; [107084]

(2) how much the Charity Commission spent on items branded with its logo in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12; [107087]

(3) how much the Charity Commission spent on (a) furniture and (b) artwork in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12; [107090]

(4) how much the Charity Commission spent on (a) hotel accommodation and (b) hotel room hire in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12; [107093]

(5) how much the Charity Commission spent on (a) first, (b) Club or business and (c) economy class air travel in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12; [107095]

(6) how much (a) members of the Board and (b) senior executives of the Charity Commission incurred in expenses in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107099]

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Charity Commission. I have asked the Commission's Head of Corporate Services to reply.

Letter from Nick Allaway, dated 14 May 2012:

I have been asked to reply to your questions about Charity Commission expenditure.

How much the Charity Commission spent on (a) conferences, (b) staff away days and (c) sports events in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107084]

We do not hold separate information for conferences prior to 2010-11 or for staff away days. We have provided estimated costs for our annual internal sports day.

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

(a) attending conferences and seminars

n/a

19,340

13,554

(b) staff away days

n/a

n/a

n/a

(c) sports events

(1)300

(1)300

(1)300

n/a = Not available. (1) Approximately.

How much the Charity Commission spent on items branded with its logo in (a) 2009-10, (b) 2010-11 and (c) 2011-12. [107087]

These figures include specific items such as business cards, one-off flyers promoting events and banners for use at these events.

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Branded items

3,438

489

196

How much the Charity Commission spent on (a) furniture and (b) artwork in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107090]

In this period our London office moved premises.

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

(a) furniture and fittings

32,299

48,623

0

(b) artwork

0

0

0

16 May 2012 : Column 191W

How much the Charity Commission spent on (a) hotel accommodation and (b) hotel room hire in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107093]

The Commission has four offices in Liverpool, London, Newport and Taunton and most of these costs reflect staff travel between our sites.

We do not hold separate information for rooms hired in hotels.

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

(a) hotel accommodation

171,162

88,417

68,414

(b) hotel room hire

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a = Not available.

How much the Charity Commission spent on (a) first, (b) Club or business and (c) economy class air travel in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107095]

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

(a) first

0

0

0

(b) Club or business

0

0

0

(c) economy

5,028

5,241

2,977

How much (a) members of the Board and (b) senior executives of the Charity Commission incurred in expenses in (i) 2009-10, (ii) 2010-11 and (iii) 2011-12. [107099]

Board expenses are published in our resource accounts on our website:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/About_us/About_the_Commission/annualreps.aspx

Senior executive costs from January 2011 relate to a Senior Management Team of 13 people which replaced a team of four executive directors. This followed a restructure as part of our strategic review. Expenses have fallen since the restructure despite the expansion in senior executive numbers.

£
  2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

(a) Board expenses

33,933

28,650

17,512

(b) senior executive expenses

22,371

26,769

12,891

Total

56,304

55,419

30,403

I hope this information is helpful.

High Speed 2 Railway Line

Steve Baker: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether his Department's selection criteria under the Major Project Authority applied to the Department for Transport's High Speed 2 proposals; and which such criteria applied. [107453]

Mr Maude: The Major Projects Authority's definition of a Major Project is “a central Government funded project or programme that requires HM Treasury approval during its life, as set out in Delegated Authority letters”.

This definition is set out in the MPA's assurance and approval guidance, available online at:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/major-project-approvals-assurance-guidance.pdf

16 May 2012 : Column 192W

High Speed 2 falls within this definition as it requires HMT approval, as set out in Delegated Authority letters between HM Treasury and the Department for Transport.

Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which individuals produced the Major Projects Authority's report on the Department for Transport's HS2 proposals; and what their areas of expertise were. [107539]

Mr Maude: All three individuals on the HS2 review team were independent of the project. They were accredited reviewers, experienced in infrastructure, transport and complex project delivery.

We do not make public names of individual reviewers.

Job Creation: Hyndburn

Graham Jones: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many private sector jobs were created in Hyndburn constituency between (a) May 2005 and May 2009 and (b) June 2009 and May 2012. [107658]

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply.

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated May 2012:

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question how many private sector jobs were created in Hyndburn constituency between (a) May 2005 and May 2009 and (b) June 2009 and May 2012. (107658)

Estimates of new jobs created are not available. Whilst information is available for net changes in level, it partially reflects jobs lost, partially reflects people who have been recruited into existing jobs that were vacant. Consequently these statistics do not give any useful information regarding the actual level of new job creation.

Annex A

Regional public sector employment as a proportion of the total number of employees (1,2,3,4)
  Headcount, percentage, not seasonally adjusted
  All employees
  England Wales Scotland (5) Northern Ireland (6)

2008

19 6

25.4

23,5

29.3

2009

21.0

27.1

25.4

31.3

2010

20.8

26.7

25.4

29.9

2011

20.0

25.9

24.0

28.5

(1) Annual figures relate to June quarter (Q2). (2) Estimates are based on where people are employed. (3) Northern Rock classified to the public sector from 9 October 2007. Bradford and Bingley classified to public sector from 26 September 2008. Royal Bank of Scotland Group and Lloyds Banking Group classified to public sector from 13 October 2008. (4) Figures use Labour Force Survey—All in employment aged 16 and over as a denominator. Data refer to May-July. (5) Estimates of public sector employment for Scotland are supplied by Scottish Government. (6) Estimates of public sector employment for Northern Ireland will differ to those published by DFPNI. The ONS figures include HM Forces personnel. These ONS figures also use Labour Force Survey employment as a denominator as opposed to the Quarterly Employment Surrey employee estimate used by DFPNI. Source: Office for National Statistics

16 May 2012 : Column 193W

Major Projects Authority

Christopher Pincher: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which projects reviewed by the Major Projects Authority have been (a) terminated and (b) re-scoped as a result. [107207]

Mr Maude: The Major Projects Authority (MPA) was set up to address the situation we saw in the past when huge amounts of taxpayers' money was squandered on projects that failed to stick to budget or time.

The authority supports Departments to improve the outcome of Government's major projects to assure value for money for the taxpayer and better services for users. The final responsibility and accountability for delivery of major projects rests with Departments.

The MPA reviewed around 180 major, projects last year. Two projects have since been terminated, and one project's core contract has been terminated. Many reviews included recommendations which required a degree of re-scoping. This is an indication that the MPA is working effectively.

Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which projects reviewed by the Major Projects Authority have been classified as (a) green, (b) amber/green, (c) amber, (d) amber/red and (e) red. [107540]

Mr Maude: The Major Projects Authority will publish an annual report by the summer, in which some further information will be included on each project.

International Development

Africa

Anna Soubry: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the G8 successfully tackles malnutrition in Africa. [106413]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: My officials have been working closely with other G8 members to set out plans for food and nutrition security, building on commitments made at L'Aquila in 2009. These include support to the Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, and nutrition programmes for pregnant women and children in the critical 1,000 days from conception. UK support to the SUN movement has generated rapid and significant political commitment to tackle undernutrition globally.

The UK also supports G8 plans for the accelerated release, adoption and consumption of bio-fortified crops and technologies to improve the nutritional quality of food in Africa. G8 members are likely to agree to do more to improve nutrition policies and to support the efforts of African institutions, civil society and private sector partners to establish regional nutritional learning centres to better develop the evidence and capacity to tackle hunger in Africa.

The UK is already committed to improve the nutrition of 20 million children under five years of age from 2011-15. I believe that collectively we—the G8—can and should do more to tackle the crisis of malnutrition in developing countries. I will be attending the food security symposium, organised around the G8 summit, to demonstrate strong UK backing for tackling

16 May 2012 : Column 194W

undernutrition and to push for more collective action on this important issue globally, and for Africa in particular.

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his international counterparts on steps to tackle malnutrition in Africa. [106835]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: The coalition Government have dedicated significant extra resources to improve nutrition in Africa, under our strategy to tackle under-nutrition in developing countries. My Department is working closely with the United States, European Commission, Ireland and Canada to support the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, which has secured the commitment of 20 African countries. In addition to direct aid on nutrition such as providing 700,000 Zambian children with micro nutrient powders, we are supporting partner governments in Africa to strengthen their approaches. We are also co-ordinating other donors behind national strategies. For example, in Zambia the UK is working with other donors such as Irish Aid to support the national programme, and in Nigeria the UK is taking on the role of donor convenor for nutrition. We are also working with other G8 and G20 members to improve the global food system, especially in tackling the impact of price volatility, and with donors such as the Gates Foundation and the World Health Organisation to ensure that evidence gaps are filled.

To help avoid the cycle of food crises in Africa, the UK is playing a leading role in an international effort to effort to reduce countries' and communities' resilience to shocks. At times of particular need such as the Horn and Sahel food crises, I press donor governments and multilateral organisations for a more timely and proportionate response. I have had regular discussions with my counterparts in the United States and European governments, including on preventing and treating acute malnutrition.

Developing Countries: Malnutrition

Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he plans to take to encourage G8 countries to tackle malnutrition and growth stunting in developing countries. [106720]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: My officials have been working closely with other G8 members to set out plans for food and nutrition security, building on commitments made at L'Aquila in 2009. These include support to the Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, and nutrition programmes for pregnant women and children in the critical 1,000 days from conception. UK support to the SUN movement has generated rapid and significant political commitment to tackle under-nutrition globally.

The UK also supports G8 plans for the accelerated release, adoption and consumption of bio-fortified crops and technologies to improve the nutritional quality of food. G8 members are likely to agree to do more to improve nutrition policies and to support the efforts, of African institutions, civil society and private sector partners to establish regional nutritional learning centres to better develop the evidence and capacity to tackle hunger.

16 May 2012 : Column 195W

The UK is already committed to improve the nutrition of 20 million children under five years of age from 2011-15. I believe that collectively we—the G8—can and should do more to tackle the crisis of malnutrition in developing countries. I will be attending the food security symposium, organised around the G8 summit, to demonstrate strong UK backing for tackling under-nutrition and to push for more collective action on this important issue.

Eritrea

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [106880]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: Eritrea, like other countries in the region, is affected by chronic food insecurity. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is reporting exceptional shortfalls in food production and supply, and estimates that 65% of the population is undernourished. Eritrea was ranked the third worst country in the world for food security in the Global Hunger Index in 2010 and 2011.

The Government of Eritrea deny that there are food shortages in the country, although it accepts there is poverty and need for development. The UK will continue to engage in Eritrea through our UN partners. This year UK aid will improve nutrition for 60,000 children, provide 40,000 people with access to clean water supplies, and help 37,000 households to construct their own toilets.

India

David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department has provided any funding to the Indian space programme. [106849]

Mr Andrew Mitchell: No.

Overseas Aid

Oliver Colvile: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure UK aid spent through the EU contributes to the Government's priorities of poverty reduction and working with poor countries and poor people. [107197]

Mr O'Brien: The DFID multilateral aid review called for European Union (EU) aid to be more poverty and results focused. Ministers are committed to ensuring that EU aid attains the same standards of high quality and effectiveness of UK bilateral aid programmes, as set out in the bilateral aid review. We have already made demonstrable progress. As a result of UK pressure, the EU is reviewing its entire approach to aid: cutting funding to countries that do not need it, refocusing its aid on results and ensuring much greater transparency, value for money and accountability.

In the current negotiations on the EU budget for the period 2014-20, the UK is pressing to re-write EU rules so that aid is focused on results and value for money instead of financial inputs. We are supporting the European Commission's proposals for the EU to concentrate its

16 May 2012 : Column 196W

efforts on a limited number of sectors in each partner country and base support closely on countries' own priorities in order to ensure effectiveness.

Oliver Colvile: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure any lessons learnt from the bilateral aid review and multilateral aid review are used to inform EU aid policy. [107198]

Mr O'Brien: The DFID multilateral aid review, published in 2011, called for EU aid to be more transparent and flexible, with allocations to countries based upon need and a clearer focus on achieving results and demonstrating value for money. Ministers are committed to ensuring that EU aid attains the same standards of high quality and effectiveness of UK bilateral aid programmes, as set out in the bilateral aid review.

In the current negotiations over the next EU budget for 2014-20, we are pressing to re-write EU rules so that all future EU aid programmes are more clearly focused on results and value for money. The coalition Government is also fighting hard to ensure that future EU aid programmes have a clear poverty-focus, are only allocated to countries where it is needed most and to protect aid to small vulnerable Commonwealth countries. As a result of concerted UK pressure, the EU is currently reviewing key aspects of its entire approach to aid; this includes cutting funding to countries that don't need it, such as some middle-income countries in Latin America; working on the design of a new results framework; and taking necessary steps to ensure much greater transparency and accountability in future.

Risk Assessment

Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what strategic or transitional risk registers in each area of policy are held by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [107474]

Mr Duncan: DFID manage risk through a hierarchy of risk registers. Strategic risks are managed via a board level corporate risk register. This is supported by tactical level risk registers which are-produced for all DFID departments as part of the operational planning process. At project level, risk registers are produced in accordance with DFID's business case process.

Sick Leave

Mr Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many days of sick leave were taken by staff in his Department in each of the last three years. [106435]

Mr Duncan: The number of days' sick leave, taken by home civil service (HCS) staff in DFID, in each of the last three years, are as follows:

2009—9,098 days, at an average of 4.9 working days per HCS employee

2010—9,881 days, at an average of 5.2 working days per HCS employee

2011—9,142 days, at an average of 4.7 working days per HCS employee

16 May 2012 : Column 197W

Southern Sudan

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether Ministers or officials in his Department have had discussions with their counterparts in the government of the Republic of South Sudan on their reintegration plan for returnees from Sudan and its potential effect on food security. [106548]

Mr O'Brien: I raised the issue of returnees with the Government of South Sudan when I visited the country last month. I conveyed a clear message that the Government of South Sudan must take responsibility for supporting the return and reintegration of its citizens. Access to land, both for housing and farming, is a key area of concern. I have also discussed the risks associated with the broader food security situation in the country with the Government. Because of a poor harvest in 2011, conflict and rising prices, it is estimated that this year 1.3 million people—both resident and returnees—will face severe food insecurity, and 3.7 million will face borderline food insecurity. Last month DFID announced support through World Food Programme to help provide food assistance for 100,000 people affected by severe food insecurity.

Syria

Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in determining with partners the appropriate proportions of UK aid to be allocated to each country and to assist people fleeing Syria, what account he takes of the number (a) awaiting UNHCR registration and (b) identified by local organisations as being in need of assistance in the host country concerned; and if he will make a statement. [106491]

Mr Duncan: UK humanitarian funding is allocated according to assessed humanitarian needs.

The UK is a major funder of United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) providing substantial core funding to support it to work with refugees all over the world. In addition the UK has provided specific funding for refugees from Syria, channelled through the UNHCR and to the UN Emergency Response Fund. Our contribution is not earmarked to specific countries. This allows UNHCR and UN agencies to work with local partners to allocate UK funding flexibly to respond to a rapidly changing situation in order to ensure aid reaches those who need it most.

This is a very complex refugee situation. Not all Syrians outside Syria are, or would want to be, registered as refugees. For this reason our funding is being delivered flexibly to agencies working on the ground to ensure it is allocated to those most in need.

International Watercourses

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Government intends that the UK will accede to the UN convention on non-navigational uses of international watercourses. [106547]

16 May 2012 : Column 198W

Mr O'Brien: The UN Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (the Convention) was adopted in 1997. The UK was a sponsoring partner, but has yet to accede. The Convention provides a framework for the management of transboundary waters. The principles in the Convention are acknowledged as being valuable and important and have been widely used despite not entering into force.

To date, the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of Watercourses has not entered into force as too few countries have either ratified or acceded to this Convention. The UK has not ratified nor acceded to the Convention and has no intention to do so at this time.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Bangladesh

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with representatives of the Government of Bangladesh on disappearances in that country. [106731]

Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently raised our concerns about democracy and human rights in Bangladesh when he met the Bangladesh Foreign Minister on 16 April.

Our high commission in Bangladesh also raises our concerns at alleged human rights violations, including disappearances, with the Government.

In a press conference on Wednesday 9 May, our high commissioner in Bangladesh and ambassadors of eight other European countries, called on the Bangladesh authorities to conduct thorough investigations into disappearances and killings.

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any meetings with representatives of the government of Bangladesh regarding the disappearance of M. Ilyas Ali. [106733]

Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not had any meetings with the Government of Bangladesh about the disappearance of Mr Elias Ali, but raised our interest in democracy and human rights in Bangladesh when he met the Bangladesh Foreign Minister on 16 April.

We are concerned about the disappearance of Mr Elias Ali. The British high commission in Dhaka is in regular contact with members of the Government and the Bangladesh Nationalist party. In a press conference on Wednesday 9 May, our high commissioner to Bangladesh, and ambassadors of eight other European countries called on the Bangladesh authorities to conduct thorough investigations into disappearances, including that of Mr Ali.

We continue to urge the Bangladeshi authorities to do all they can to locate Mr Ali and to investigate the circumstances of his disappearance.

16 May 2012 : Column 199W

Guided Weapons

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the Storm Shadow missile made by MBDA Missile Systems falls within the scope of the Missile Technology Control Regime; and if he will make a statement. [106546]

Alistair Burt: Assessment of the Storm Shadow missile is made by the Export Control Organisation within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and by Government officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence that work on export licensing and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Storm Shadow is a complete rocket system which falls within the definitions set out in the MTCR guidelines, and its export is therefore assessed as being controlled under the MTCR.

Israel

Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he (a) has had and (b) plans to have with ministerial colleagues on the export of armoured and other demolition vehicles to Israel which may be used to carry out demolitions in the occupied territories. [106648]

Alistair Burt: There have been no recent ministerial discussions on exports to Israel and none are planned. Heavy equipment used in the construction industry is often not military rated and may therefore not require an export licence. Where such equipment is licensable, the Government policy on the export of UK controlled military goods to all destinations is based on the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. All applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, against the Consolidated Criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time of the application and the stated end user and end use. The criteria make clear that the Government will not approve the export of controlled military goods where there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression. Ministers have oversight of the export licensing process and are involved in decision making with finely balanced applications. We have no records of any licensable exports of armoured demolition vehicles or plant vehicles to Israel.

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of whether the conditions experienced by Israeli-held prisoners are in accord with (a) Articles 76 and 32 and (b) other provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilians in times of war; and if he will make a statement. [106830]

Alistair Burt: We continue to have concerns about the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention. These concerns include, but are not limited to: allegations of mistreatment during arrest and in Israeli prisons, widespread use of administrative detention by the Israeli authorities, frequent restrictions on family visits and on

16 May 2012 : Column 200W

access to lawyers and the use of secret evidence before the military courts and routine detention of Palestinians from the West Bank in prison inside Israel, in contravention of the Geneva Convention.

We raise these concerns regularly with the Israeli authorities. UK officials attend military court hearings as part of an EU team monitoring cases of Palestinians identified as human rights defenders. The UK Government has previously provided practical assistance such as helping ensure that detainees were represented by Palestinian lawyers trained in Israeli military law.

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the Israeli prison practise of sunduq punishment; and if he will make a statement. [106833]

Alistair Burt: We are aware of some reports of Sunduq punishment being used in Israeli prisons. We have not raised this specific issue with the Israeli authorities but will do so as part of our broader work on the rights of prisoners held in Israeli prisons.

We continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities over the use of a dual court system whereby Palestinians, except East Jerusalem residents, are subject to the Israeli military court system, irrespective of the charge, whereas Israeli settlers are dealt with by the Israeli civil justice system.

We regularly encourage the Israeli authorities to comply with their obligations under international law, including in their policies on detention and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners.

Sir Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the EU not to renew Israel's special trading status in view of its continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in contravention of UN Resolutions; and if he will make a statement. [107452]

Alistair Burt: We support closer ties between Israel and the international community, including the EU. We do not believe that the isolation of Israel is the way to achieve the positive steps that we would like to see towards a two-state solution.

At the same time progress towards a two-state solution is a key element of the relationship between the EU and Israel. The EU has been very clear that no progress can be made on upgrading the wider EU-Israel relationship until there is substantial progress towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is a position the UK supports.