Pre-school Education

Mr Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children under the age of three attended nursery school for (a) five days a week and (b) on a part-time basis in (i) Ribble Valley constituency, (b) Lancashire and (c) England in each of the last five years. [172377]

Elizabeth Truss: The information requested is given in the following table:

Number of children1 under the age of three2 in state-funded nursery schools, 2008-09 to 2012-13—England, Lancashire local authority and Ribble Valley constituency
 Full-timePart-time3

2008-09

  

25 Oct 2013 : Column 303W

Ribble Valley constituency

0

19

Lancashire local authority

0

333

England4

1,190

6,400

   

2009-10

  

Ribble Valley constituency

0

29

Lancashire local authority

0

380

England4

860

6,870

   

2010/11

  

Ribble Valley constituency

0

25

Lancashire local authority

0

352

England4

900

7,370

   

2011/12

  

Ribble Valley constituency

0

22

Lancashire local authority

0

374

England4

840

7,240

   

2012/13

  

Ribble Valley constituency

0

21

Lancashire local authority

0

383

England4

930

7,950

1 Sole or dually registered number (headcount) of pupils. 2 Age as at 31 August before the relevant academic year. 3 Attending fewer than 10 sessions a week. 4 Numbers rounded to nearest 10. Note: Children aged under three may also be attending child care outside of schools in other child care providers such as full day care (incorporating full day care in children's centres), sessional, after-school clubs, holiday clubs and childminders. Source: School census

Pupils: Disadvantaged

Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 14 October 2013, Official Report, columns 602-3W, on free school meals, what plans his Department has to facilitate the availability of pupil premium to Key Stage 1 children and the schools they attend in subsequent years. [172097][Official Report, 1 November 2013, Vol. 569, c. 8MC.]

Mr Laws: We are providing significant funding through the pupil premium to help raise the attainment of disadvantaged children and are committed to its continuation. As stated in my previous answer, our methodology for allocating the pupil premium in 2014-15 will not be affected by our policy to provide free school meals for all infant pupils.

We are considering the possible implications for how the pupil premium is allocated longer term. A number of local authorities such as Southwark, Newham, Durham and Islington are currently offering free school meals to their primary pupils whilst still submitting data used in

25 Oct 2013 : Column 304W

the allocation of pupil premium. We will consider their experience and set out our proposals in due course.

Schools: Sports

Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to the answer of 2 July 2013, Official Report, column 600W, on schools: sports, what steps he is taking to encourage girls to take part in more physical education at school and to make sport more attractive to girls; and what change in participation level in school sports there has been since the launch of “Changing the Game for Girls” programme. [172216]

Mr Timpson: Across Government we have committed £150 million a year for the school years 2013/14 and 2014/15 to improve the quality of Physical Education (PE) in primary schools for all pupils.

It is important to improve girls' physical activity levels, and increase their engagement in PE to form a lasting sporting habit. Measures are in place across Government to support this aim. The new National Curriculum programme of study exemplifies a range of team and individual sports and other activities designed to appeal to a broad range of pupils. The Department for Education's website features a case study showcasing methods of increasing (and retaining) girls' engagement in PE and sport.

In June 2013 the Department for Health awarded grant funding of £227,000 to the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFF) to run a pilot scheme to help 25 schools to adapt and improve their provision of school sport to engage more girls. Findings will be available on-line for all schools and will inform future decisions. In addition, Sport England's “Whole Sport Funding 2013-17” plan will ensure that, where appropriate, sports enhance and change their offer for girls and women. We are also working with the national governing bodies of individual sports to ensure that their education offers appeal to girls as well as boys. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), recently launched a strategy group to examine ways to encourage girls to become more physically active as well as how more women can be placed in leadership roles in sport.

The Department for Education does not hold data recording girls' levels of participation in school sports since the publication of the “Changing the Game for Girls” report in May 2012.

Telephone Services

Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what his Department's policy is on the use of geographical telephone numbers to allow the public to contact his Department. [172268]

Elizabeth Truss: The Department for Education's policy is to offer geographical telephone numbers (or cost equivalents) to allow the public to contact the Department. In accordance with Ofcom guidance, all of our public facing helplines use 01, 02, 03 or 080 'freephone' numbers.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 305W

Business, Innovation and Skills

Billing: Fees and Charges

Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if the Government will bring forward amendments to the draft Consumer Rights Bill to prevent companies from charging vulnerable consumers from being charged by companies for choosing to receive bills and statements through the post. [172109]

Jo Swinson: Existing rules apply in key service sectors to ensure that where different prices apply they are clear and properly justified by differences in processing costs to the business. Paper bills will not always be the best choice for more vulnerable customers who should seek advice on the most appropriate payment method and provider for their circumstances. For example, cheaper tariffs are made available to certain qualifying customers.

Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if the Government will make proposals to prevent vulnerable consumers from being charged by companies for choosing to receive bills and statements through the post. [172110]

Jo Swinson: I have no plans for additional measures at this time and rules already exist in key service sectors. Many businesses offer cheaper tariffs to their more vulnerable customers and legislative safeguards exist so that regulators can act on excessive charges.

Justin Tomlinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what his policy is on companies charging consumers who choose to receive paper bills and statements by post; and what assessment he has made of the effect this has on vulnerable consumers. [172128]

Jo Swinson: What prices a business charges its customers is a commercial matter for them. Where there are different prices for electronic and paper bill recipients these should be clear and justified by differences in the cost of processing payment receipts.

The effect on customers will differ depending on circumstances and the reasons they have chosen to have paper bills, but many business offer cheaper tariffs to certain qualifying customers.

Further Education: Teacher Training

Mr Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what proportion of teachers working in further education colleges are currently neither qualified nor in training. [171949]

Matthew Hancock: Information on the qualifications that teachers in further education colleges hold, or the training that teachers are currently undertaking is not collected or held centrally by Government or any of their agencies.

As independent organisations, further education colleges are individually responsible for their teachers, including training and continuing professional development.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 306W

The most recent evidence collected by the then Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) for the year 2010-11 reported that almost 80% of teachers in further education institutions held teaching qualifications and 19% were enrolled on teaching qualification courses.

Higher Education: Admissions

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he plans to take to institute an alternative university admissions process so that applications can be made after A-level results are published. [172437]

Mr Willetts: Universities are independent and autonomous organisations responsible for their own admissions decisions. The Government have no legal power to interfere in university admissions.

In April last year UCAS published a comprehensive review of the university admission process. As part of this review UCAS consulted extensively across the education sector on the barriers and benefits to the introduction of a system of post qualification application (PQA) to higher education. Their firm recommendation was that a system of PQA should not be implemented.

UCAS is currently working to implement the recommendations from their review of the university admissions process.

Regional Growth Fund

Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on what date a final agreed offer was reached for each award under round one of the Regional Growth Fund; and what the monetary value was of each such award. [172486]

Michael Fallon: Contracting for Regional Growth Fund (RGF) awards under Round 1 is now complete.

39% of Round 1 offers had been finalised within six months of the original conditional offer and 80% within 15 months. On 19 October 2012 I introduced a six month maximum time limit on all outstanding negotiations in order to bring them to a close. The last offer was subsequently finalised on 19 April 2013.

49 final awards are in place, totalling £383 million. A further £57 million has been recycled back into the RGF following the withdrawal of the original conditional award to a number of projects.

It is not possible to provide an itemised list of awards due to commercial sensitivity.

Royal Mail

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills how much Royal Mail spent on commissioning the survey published on 25 September 2013 by Ipsos-MORI. [172124]

Michael Fallon: Royal Mail's expenditure on this survey is an operational matter and is the direct responsibility of the company.

Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2013, Official Report, column 49W, on Royal Mail, what funds were held on the Government's behalf from applicants in the direct retail offer. [172483]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 307W

Michael Fallon: Approximately £1.4 billion from applicants in the direct retail offer were held on Government's behalf.

Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 21 October 2013, Official Report, column 49W, on Royal Mail, what amount of interest has accrued to date. [172484]

Michael Fallon: The interest accrued by 21 October 2013 was approximately £78,000. This will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The intention of interest accrued on retail applications is in line with that taken in precedent privatisations.

Students: Loans

Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what recent representations he received from the Scottish Government on the student loans book. [172328]

Mr Willetts: The Scottish Government are a participant in the sale of the remaining publicly-owned mortgage style loans, which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable),

announced on 26 March 2013.

I spoke to Scottish Government Ministers prior to their decision to participate in the mortgage style loan sale.

BIS officials are in regular discussions with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations regarding the income contingent repayment (ICR) and mortgage style student loan books, which are administered by SLC.

Culture, Media and Sport

Rugby: World Cup

Mr Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the potential effect on grass roots rugby union in the UK of hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2015. [172380]

Mrs Grant: Sport England is investing £20 million to support grassroots rugby through the Rugby Football Union. The RFU expects the 2015 World Cup to inspire more people to take up rugby. It estimates that by 2017, 215,000 people will be playing rugby at least once a week. That will be almost 50,000 more than in April 2013.

Tourism

Mr Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the amount spent in the British tourism industry by (a) UK nationals, (b) EU nationals and (c) all other foreign nationals in each of the last five years. [172451]

Mrs Grant: The amount spent in the British tourism industry by UK nationals, EU nationals and all other foreign nationals in each of the last five years is set out in the table.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 308W

Tourism spending in the UK
£ million
 20082009201020112012

UK nationals overnight trips

20,168

20,971

19,797

22,666

23,976

UK nationals day trips1

n/a

n/a

n/a

52,040

57,052

EU nationals

8,030

8,066

7,932

8,167

8,183

All other nationals

8,293

8,526

8,966

9,831

10,457

1 The figure for UK nationals expenditure is split into overnight visits and day visits but it should be noted that the day visits survey has only been running since 2011, providing two years of data. It should also be noted that figures from 2005-10 consider the whole of the UK, and are not directly comparable with subsequent data, which considers residents of Great Britain only—Northern Ireland run separate surveys.

International Development

Kashmir

Debbie Abrahams: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent in (a) Kashmir and (b) joint projects between Pakistan-controlled and Indian-controlled Kashmir, in each year since 2009. [172323]

Mr Duncan: UK aid to Kashmir is currently delivered through national programmes operating in both Pakistan and India. It is not possible to disaggregate costs specifically for Kashmir without incurring disproportionate cost. A full breakdown of UK bilateral aid provided to Pakistan and India over each of the past five years can be found at

www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-on-international-development

The tri-departmental Conflict Pool funds programmes in Pakistan and India-controlled Kashmir that are administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A total of £1,576,222 has been spent on Kashmir from the South Asia Conflict Pool since 2009. This is broken down as follows:

 £

2009-10

192,064

2010-11

486,621

2011-12

623,842

2012-13

273,695

Overseas Aid

Mr McKenzie: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department takes to ensure that aid to developing countries reaches the intended recipients; and if she will make a statement. [172446]

Mr Duncan: DFID has robust monitoring systems in place to ensure that aid to developing countries reaches the intended recipients. All projects are reviewed annually with a specific focus on the results achieved and feedback from beneficiaries. Teams also provide assurance that the risk of funds not being used for their intended purpose is being well managed.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 309W

Palestinians

Mr Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent information her Department has received on the Palestinian Authority's provision of welfare payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons; [172428]

(2) what recent information her Department has received on Israel's provision of canteen payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. [172429]

Mr Duncan: UK aid does not contribute to any payments made by the Palestinian Authority to prisoners or their families, and the Department has not received any recent information relating to them.

Syria

Lindsay Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much humanitarian aid her Department has provided to Syria in the last six months; and whether her Department has monitored its use. [172263]

Mr Duncan: Since the start of the crisis in Syria in 2011, the UK has committed half a billion pounds, the largest total sum the UK has ever committed to a single crisis. £255 million of this has already been allocated to partners, £150 million of which is for support inside Syria.

DFID monitors all humanitarian assistance to Syria. All partners are required to submit quarterly reports against agreed project outputs, annual audited accounts and regular narrative and financial reporting.

Defence

Air Force: Recruitment

Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the use of pre-disposition data by Royal Air Force Recruitment and Selection; what assessment he has made of the case of Ms Lowri Simner, reference RAFC 52427/1/R&S; and if he will make a statement. [171938]

Anna Soubry: The term 'pre-disposition data' is not recognised by RAF Recruitment and Selection. The RAF uses a range of information on which to assess the eligibility of candidates for the RAF.

In accordance with our obligations under the Data Protection Act, we do not comment on individual cases.

Armed Forces: Domestic Violence

Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to encourage closer working relationships between Armed Forces Family Support units and domestic violence charities. [171804]

Anna Soubry: Dealing with incidents of domestic violence requires a wide range of skills from a variety of service and civilian support agencies and this includes domestic violence charities. The Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of the support that domestic violence charities offer, and our policy is to engage with such charities (eg Woman's Aid, Refuge, Respect and Victim Support) as appropriate.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 310W

There are a number of examples of close working relationships at local level; the Army Welfare Service is a member of the North East Hampshire Domestic Abuse Forum; has worked alongside Women's Aid, and have staff who trained as Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (training delivered by Women's Aid and CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse)).

The naval service welfare organisations have an agreement with “Aurora New Dawn”, a charity that provides enhanced support to victims of domestic violence. They have also implemented a new initiative in the Gosport and Fareham area where a military working group has been instigated with Community Safety Partnerships and several charities to provide support to victims.

To further demonstrate our closer working relationships with charities, the North East Hampshire Domestic Abuse Forum secured LIBOR funding (as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September 2013) to develop a domestic abuse toolkit for working with armed forces families.

Artillery

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met BAE Systems to discuss production of the M777 howitzer. [172085]

Mr Dunne: I last discussed the production of the M777 howitzer for potential export to India with BAE Systems at the Defence Security and Equipment International 2013 event last month.

Defence: Scotland

Mr McKenzie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in the defence industry in Scotland; and what estimate he has made of the number of such jobs in the event of Scottish separation. [172343]

Dr Murrison: The Ministry of Defence does not produce estimates of jobs in the defence industry in Scotland. However, according to Scottish Development International, the aerospace, defence and marine industry in Scotland employs nearly 40,000 staff, with the defence sector employing around 12,600 people.

The UK Government are clear that Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. The UK Government are not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support Scotland remaining within the UK.

In the event of independence, companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK is able to place or compete domestically for national security reasons; and where they could continue to compete they would be competing for business in an international market.

The Scottish Government need to set out clearly how independence would benefit the Scottish economy, Scottish jobs and the Scottish people. It has failed to do this so far.

Energy

Chris Leslie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs were incurred by his Department's estate in respect of (a) gas and (b) electricity supply in the 2012-13 financial year. [172416]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 311W

Dr Murrison: The total expenditure on gas and electricity across the Department's worldwide state of approximately 4,000 sites in financial year 2012-13 is shown in the following table:

UtilityExpenditure (rounded to nearest £ million)

Gas

122

Electricity

209

Attorney-General

Hillsborough Independent Panel

Steve Rotheram: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the decision of the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service to partially recuse himself from decision making in the Hillsborough investigations; and what effect this decision will have on the timeline for potential criminal prosecutions. [172454]

The Attorney-General: I consider the decision of the chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service to recuse himself from any decisions involving the West Midlands police in order to meet the concerns expressed by some of the families of the victims to be understandable and sensible. It will not impact on the timeline for any potential criminal prosecutions. Where he is not involved, the decision maker will be Sue Hemming, the head of special crime and counter terrorism division, who is already heavily involved in the case.

Home Department

Animal Experiments: Scotland

Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for experiments in Scotland in 2010; and how many such project licences were in force at the end of 2012. [170630]

James Brokenshire: During 2010 a total of 515 project licences in total were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the United Kingdom of which 100 were granted at establishments in Scotland. Of these, 91 licences were still in force on 31 December 2012.

I note that the statistics reported reflect the returns in the annual statistics under project licences where the primary availability is in Scotland. Returns reported for Scotland could therefore include statistics for additional availabilities at other establishments not in Scotland, or work at non-licensed places, also not in Scotland, that are authorised by the project licence.

EU Justice and Home Affairs

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in another EU member state, pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, for breaching UK immigration law in each of the last five years; [171186]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 312W

(2) whether the Government intend to continue the exchange of information with other EU member states required by Article 7 of Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, assuming that the UK ceases to be bound by that Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; and what assessment she has made of whether other member states will continue to participate in that exchange with the UK; [171187]

(3) whether other EU member states will continue to criminalise breaches of UK immigration law to the extent that they are currently required to do so by Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, assuming that the UK ceases to be bound by this Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171188]

(4) whether the Government intend to retain unchanged the provisions of UK law and practice required by Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, assuming that the UK ceases to be bound by the Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171189]

(5) how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in the UK, pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA, for breaching the immigration law of another EU member state in each of the last five years. [171190]

James Brokenshire [holding answer 17 October 2013]: The information requested on the number of people prosecuted and convicted in another EU member state for breaching UK law; and, the number of people prosecuted and convicted in the UK for breaching the law of another EU member state is not held centrally.

The UK will continue to exchange information with other member states via the National Crime Agency and the UK's Europol National Unit. Other member states will also be able to exchange information with the UK via these structures and will continue to be bound by this measure and any obligations it proposes in relation to the criminalisation of acts.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014 the UK will have the power to change legislation on this matter in our Parliament. At the moment, there is no intention to change provisions of UK law.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Government intends to retain without change existing provisions of UK law and practice required by Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, if the UK ceases to be bound by that Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171674]

(2) which requirements of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA the UK (a) does and (b) does not implement. [171675]

James Brokenshire: The UK has fully implemented this Framework Decision, with the exception of provisions relating to the confiscation of instrumentalities. The definition of ‘instrumentalities’ in UK law relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime is narrower than that in the Framework Decision. Had the UK not

25 Oct 2013 : Column 313W

opted out of this measure, it would have been necessary to amend our domestic law to comply with the obligations of the Framework Decision.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to change legislation or practice on this matter in our Parliament. The Government do however currently intend to retain, without change, existing provisions of UK law relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many times UK authorities have taken part in meetings pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; what information was exchanged with UK authorities on each such occasion; and what her assessment is of how useful this information has been to the UK; [171676]

(2) how many times UK authorities have received information as a result of Article 3(3) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; and what action was taken by UK authorities on the basis of this information in each case; [171742]

(3) how many times UK authorities applied to the authorities of another EU member state for information under Article 3(2) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; and on how many of these occasions UK authorities received the information they sought; [171743]

(4) in how many cases UK authorities co-ordinated their activities with the authorities of one or more other EU member states as a result of the provisions of Article 5(1) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; and what the substance and outcome of the co-ordination was in each case; [171744]

(5) whether the Government plan to maintain co-operation with other EU member states established by Council Decision 2003/335/JHA were the UK no longer bound by that Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; and what assessment she has made of whether this would be at least as efficacious as UK participation in the Decision.; [171745]

(6) what the cost to the public purse has been of UK participation in Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; [171746]

(7) whether the Government plan to retain unchanged existing provisions of UK law and practice required by Council Decision 2003/335/JHA, were the UK no longer bound by the Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171756]

(8) in how many cases UK authorities co-operated with the authorities of another EU member state due to the provisions of Article 3(1) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA in each of the last five years; and what the substance and outcome of the co-operation was in each case; [171757]

(9) which of the requirements of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA the UK (a) has and (b) has not implemented. [171758]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 314W

James Brokenshire: UK Contact Points designated under Council Decision 2002/494/JHA have taken part in five meetings pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA. No record of the type of information shared by the UK at these meetings is held centrally. The UK is already committed to the investigation and prosecution of those suspected of crimes covered by this measure and its impact is not operationally significant.

Information on the number of times the UK has received information in the last five years as a result of Article 3(3) is not recorded centrally. Nor is information on the number of cases for which the UK authorities applied to the authorities of another EU member state under Article 3(2) in the last five years. The information on the number of cases UK authorities coordinated their activities with the authorities of one or more other EU member states as a result of the provisions of Article 5(1) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA is not available centrally.

The UK does not need to rely on Article 3(1) of Council Decision 2003/335/JHA to assist the investigation and prosecution of crimes referred to in Article 1 of the Council Decision in another EU member state.

However, Home Office records indicate that since 1 January 2007, 16 requests relating to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide have been received from EU member states. The number of outgoing requests sent by the UK to EU member states is not held centrally.

This information has been provided from local management information and has not been quality assured to the level of published National Statistics. As such it should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

The UK has implemented the measure through administrative means and is compliant in most respects. This measure imposes obligations in regard to the routine sharing of information. The sharing of such information raises issues regarding the safeguarding of personal information, confidentiality, use of material, and disclosure. This provision makes it difficult for the UK to operate in practice.

There are no specific costs associated with participation in this measure over the last five years.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to change legislation on this matter in our Parliament. However, at the moment, the Government will retain unchanged existing UK law and practice and will maintain co-operation with other member states.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the requirements of Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA are implemented in the UK; and whether the Government intend to retain these implementing measures unchanged if the UK ceases to be bound by the Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171677]

(2) how many times the UK has sent a request to another EU member state regarding asset identification, tracing, freezing or seizing and confiscation that was processed in accordance with

25 Oct 2013 : Column 315W

Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA in each of the last five years; and on how many of these occasions the UK request was fulfilled; [171678]

(3) what the cost to the public purse has been of UK compliance with Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA in each of the last five years; [171679]

(4) whether the UK implements all the requirements of Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA; and if not, which requirements are not implemented; [171680]

(5) whether the Government plan to maintain the reciprocal arrangements provided for by Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA with some or all other EU member states if the UK ceases to be bound by that Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; how the Government would do this; and what assessment she has made of whether this would be at least as efficacious as UK participation in the Framework Decision; [171681]

(6) how many times in each of the last five years the UK has received a request from another EU member state regarding asset identification, tracing, freezing or seizing and confiscation that was processed in accordance with Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA; and on how many such occasions the UK fulfilled the request. [171682]

James Brokenshire: The UK meets all the obligations required by Council Framework Decision 2001/500/JHA through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. The UK's ability to confiscate the value of assets which are derived from criminal activity, including the value of assets which have derived from criminality other than that for which the defendant has been convicted, predates the existence of the Framework Decision.

The Proceeds of Crime Act established for the first time, the "all crimes" approach, which is in the spirit of this Framework Decision. In respect of value based confiscation, the UK has always adopted this approach. The UK also seeks to provide the widest measures of assistance through mutual legal assistance.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to change legislation on this matter in our Parliament. At the moment, there is currently no intention to change provisions of UK law.

Statistics on the numbers of requests made to and from the UK from other EU members states for asset identification, tracing, freezing or seizing and confiscation are not held centrally. The Government are not in a position to state the legal basis upon which requests for asset identification, tracing, freezing or seizing and confiscation are processed by other EU member states.

The cost of compliance with the Framework Decision is met through the standard day to day running costs of the United Kingdom Central Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency.

Subsequent to the opt-out taking effect the UK will continue to afford mutual legal assistance to all other EU member states through existing domestic legislation such as the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. There is not expected to be any drop in efficacy.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 316W

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many exchanges of information involving the UK have taken place in each of the last five years owing to Council Decision 2002/956/JHA, as amended; and how many of these exchanges have included operational information on the protection of a UK public figure or a public figure in the UK; [171687]

(2) what the cost to UK public funds of UK participation in the European Network for the Protection of Public Figures, established by Council Decision 2002/956/JHA has been in each of the last five years; [171688]

(3) how many common views have been established, and remain valid, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Decision 2002/956/JHA, as amended; what the substance of these common views is; whether these common views have entailed any changes to UK practices; and how often the relevant UK authorities have drawn on these common views in their operations in each of the five years; [171689]

(4) whether the Government intend to continue the co-operation with other EU Member States currently undertaken as a result of Council Decision 2002/956/JHA if the UK ceases to be bound by that Council Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; and what estimate she has made of the approximate cost to UK public funds of making arrangements for continuing such exchanges. [171690]

James Brokenshire: Details of the number of times information was exchanged, and the cost to the public purse in the last five years of UK participation in the European Network for the Protection of Public Figures, is not held centrally.

The Network has drawn up a list of contact points within each member state and has developed a 'handbook of best practice' which provides guidance for member states in relation to the protection of public figures visiting another member state. The handbook has not required any changes to UK practices in protection operations. No details are held centrally on the number of times the handbook has been referenced in the last five years in protection operations.

The UK will continue to share information on a bilateral basis either through embassies or designated contact points in each member state. No additional costs are expected as information sharing with other EU member states occurs irrespective of this measure.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to change operational practice on this matter. At the moment the Government have no intention to do so as this measure has not required any changes to operational practices or procedures.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost to UK public funds of UK participation in Council Decision 2002/996/JHA, including the secondment of national experts to evaluation teams has been in each of the last five years; [171691]

(2) how many evaluation exercises have been undertaken pursuant to Council Decision 202/996/JHA; [171692]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 317W

(3) whether the UK could continue to participate in decision-making of the Council under Article 8(3) of Council Decision 202/996/JHA if the UK ceases to be bound by that Council Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171693]

(4) whether other EU member states have implemented recommendations made to them as a result of the evaluation process established by Council Decision 2002/996/JHA; [171694]

(5) whether the Government will seek to contribute to the influencing and sharing of best practice across the EU on the matters covered by Council Decision 2002/996/JHA if the UK ceases to be bound by that Council Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; how the Government would do this; and what assessment she has made of whether this would be at least as efficacious as UK participation in the mechanism established by Council Decision 2002/996/JHA. [171695]

James Brokenshire: Two evaluation exercises have been undertaken pursuant to Council Decision 2002/996/JHA.

The UK has seconded national experts to one evaluation team in the last five years. The information requested on the cost to the public purse as a result of participation in Council Decision 2002/996/JHA, including the cost of the secondment of national experts, is not held centrally.

The UK could not continue to participate in the decision-making processes provided for in Decision 202/996/JHA, if the UK ceases to be bound by that Decision.

The UK will however, continue to work with member states to exchange best practice on counter terrorism strategies outside of the mechanism established by this Decision.

Information on the steps taken by other member states to implement recommendations is not gathered by the UK Government and it is not possible to evaluate the changes that have been made as a result of the possible to evaluate the changes that have been made as a result of the reviews.

The UK wishes to maintain its strong reputation in counter-terrorism and will continue to pursue the objective of strengthening counter-terrorism capability across the EU by influencing and sharing best practice outside of the framework. The UK co-operates bilaterally with other member states on Counter Terrorism and will continue to do so irrespective of participation in this measure. As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to decide on a case-by-case basis the most efficacious method of doing so.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost to the public purse has been in each of the last five years of UK participation in Council Decision 2004/919/EC; [171741]

(2) which of the requirements of Council Decision 2004/919/EC the UK (a) has and (b) has not implemented; [171747]

25 Oct 2013 : Column 318W

(3) what steps the Government have taken as a result of Article 3(1) of Council Decision 2004/919/EC in each of the last five years; what the frequency of these actions has been; and what assessment she has made of the usefulness of these actions in the fight against cross-border vehicle crime; [171748]

(4) whether the Government intend to maintain unchanged the co-operation and information exchange with other EU member states established by Council Decision 2004/919/EC if the UK ceases to be bound by that Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; how such co-operation would be maintained; and what assessment she has made of whether this would be at least as efficacious as UK participation in the Decision; [171749]

(5) how many times UK authorities provided information to Europol as a result of Article 9 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC in each of the last five years; [171750]

(6) whether the Government intend to retain unchanged existing UK law and practice required by Council Decision 2004/919/EC if the UK ceases to be bound by that Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171751]

(7) how many times UK authorities have (a) provided information to and (b) received information from authorities of one or more other EU member states as a result of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC in each of the last five years; and what action (i) authorities of other EU member states and (ii) UK authorities took on the basis of information received in each case; [171771]

(8) how many alerts (a) the UK and (b) other EU member states entered in the Schengen Information System under Article 6 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC in each of the last five years; what action the UK took in response to each of the alerts entered by other EU member states; and what action other EU member states took in response to each of the alerts entered by the UK. [171772]

James Brokenshire: The information requested on the cost to the public purse in the last five years of UK participation in Council Decision 2004/919/EC is not held centrally.

The Government recognise that cross-border vehicle crime is a serious issue that requires police forces and other law enforcement agencies to work together across national boundaries. We agree that the police should be able to undertake practical co-operation with their counterparts and multilateral organisations across Europe and beyond where necessary. The exact nature and extent of that co-operation should be a matter for the police to determine.

The UK has implemented this measure through administrative means. Had the UK not opted out of this measure it may have been necessary to amend our domestic law to comply with the obligations contained within Articles 4(2), 5, 6 or 11 of the Council Decision.

The Government have set one objective for the police, to reduce crime. The Government have not therefore tracked the frequency of actions taken by the police in respect of the sort of international cooperation envisaged by Article 3(1). Nor do the Government have plans to make a specific assessment about those actions.

25 Oct 2013 : Column 319W

Information on how many times UK authorities provided information to Europol as a result of Article 9 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC is not held centrally.

Information on how many times UK authorities have provided information to, and received information from, authorities of one of more other EU members states as a result of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC is not held centrally. Nor is information on what action UK authorities may have taken on the basis of information received in such cases.

The UK did not participate in the Schengen Information System and will not go live on the Second Generation Schengen Information System until October 2014. As a result, no information has been entered as a result of Article 6 of Council Decision 2004/919/EC.

As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014 the UK will have the power to change legislation on this matter in our Parliament and operational practices. At the moment, there is currently no intention to change provisions of UK law and operational practices are a matter for the police to determine.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Government plans to retain unchanged existing UK law and practice required by Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, if the UK ceases to be bound by that Framework Decision pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties; [171752]

(2) whether the UK would continue to co-operate with other EU member states on issues pertaining to Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA were the UK no longer bound by the Framework Decision

25 Oct 2013 : Column 320W

pursuant to Article 10 of the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the EU treaties. [171753]

James Brokenshire: As the UK has opted out of this measure, it is important to note that on 1 December 2014, the UK will have the power to change legislation on this matter in our Parliament. However, at the moment, the Government will retain unchanged existing UK law and practice required by Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA.

The UK Government have worked at a practical level with international partners on drugs issues for many years. Practical co-operation with other member states will not change as a result of opting out of this measure.

Stop and Search: Young People

Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people under 18 years of age were subject to stop and search procedures in (a) England and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years. [171792]

James Brokenshire [holding answer 21 October 2013]: Data on the age of persons stopped and searched are not held centrally.

Data on the main stop and search powers used by police in England and Wales are published by the Home Office on an annual basis in the National Statistics series ‘Police Powers and Procedures’. Latest published data cover the period up to the financial year 2011-12 and are included in the latest internet-only release, which is available via:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-201112