Skip to main content

Ministerial Corrections

Volume 506: debated on Monday 22 February 2010

Ministerial Corrections

Monday 22 February 2010

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Food Supply

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding his Department has provided to local food chain initiatives in the last 12 months; and which such initiatives received that funding.

[Official Report, 9 February 2010, Vol. 505, c. 829W.]

Letter of correction from Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick:

Errors have been identified in the table and first and second paragraphs of my written answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 9 February 2010. The RDPE spend cited for the Yorkshire and Humber regional development agency was incorrect. The correct table should have been:

RDA

RDPE spend (£)

North East RDA

2,656,337

Advantage West Midlands

583,228

East Midlands

648,847

South West RDA

2,850,000

North West RDA

1,776,242

South East RDA

2,590,536

East England DA

301,476

Yorkshire and Humber

4,457,098

Total

15,863,764

The first paragraph was as follows:

During the past 12 months (from 4 February 2009) £11,806,666 has been committed under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to support local food chain initiatives. This funding is administered by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the breakdown of spend by region is as follows:

The correct paragraph should have been:

During the past 12 months (from 4 February 2009) £15,863,764 has been committed under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to support local food chain initiatives. This funding is administered by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and the breakdown of spend by region is as follows:

The second paragraph was as follows:

In the same period, RDA's have also provided £4,385,078 from their single pot to support local food chain initiatives, to which DEFRA makes a contribution. The RDPE and single pot money is supporting a range of initiatives including the funding of delivery organisations in the region, support for individual food producers and retail outlets, food hubs and farmers' markets.

The correct paragraph should have been:

In the same period, RDA's have also provided £5,710,071 from their single pot, to which DEFRA makes a contribution. The RDPE and single pot money is supporting a range of initiatives including the funding of delivery organisations in the region, support for individual food producers and retail outlets, food hubs and farmers' markets. (315961)

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Binyam Mohamed

The Foreign Secretary said that our most basic values as a nation are at stake here. I agree. It is only by getting to the truth about all this that we can bring closure to the whole sorry episode that is now called extraordinary rendition and in which the UK appears to have allowed itself to become complicit in kidnapping and torture. Indeed, a judge in another case said that we had facilitated a rendition, so the issue of facilitation, in principle, is no longer in doubt. Given all that, will the Foreign Secretary now finally discuss with the Prime Minister the need for a judge-led inquiry, which is supported by Lord Carlile, who is the Government’s own anti-terrorism watchdog, the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, as well as many others?

[Official Report, 10 February 2010, Vol. 505, c. 923-924.]

Letter of correction from Mr. David Miliband:

I am concerned to clarify a potential confusion in one sentence of my answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 10 February 2010. It concerns the difference between “rendition” and “extraordinary rendition”, the former of which can be lawful (e.g. when someone is transferred to safety) and the latter of which is unreservedly to be condemned because it normally is understood to mean a transfer where there is a real risk of torture. I would not want my attempt to distinguish the process of rendition, or extraordinary rendition, from torture, to lead to confusion between rendition and extraordinary rendition.

The full statement made by me was as follows:

I am interested to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is recommitting himself to a judicial inquiry—I shall pursue it with Opposition Front-Bench Members to see whether it is the case. The Government have discussed whether a judicial inquiry would be right, but have concluded that it would not be right, not least because the judicial system in this country is performing a very effective function in the courts, which is where it belongs. I also want to put it on the record that a dangerous confusion is emerging between rendition—sometimes called extraordinary rendition—and torture. They are not the same thing, although both are reprehensible and contrary to the laws and spirit of this country. However, it is important that we do not confuse the two. In Mr. Mohamed's case, there are allegations that he was subject to both, but they are not the same; they are separate. However, they are both wrong and they both need to be addressed fully. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's main point, however, I do not think that the conclusion to be drawn from today's events is that a judicial inquiry is necessary; I draw the conclusion that the judiciary is performing its function extremely vigilantly.

The correct statement should have been:

I am interested to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is recommitting himself to a judicial inquiry—I shall pursue it with Opposition Front-Bench Members to see whether it is the case. The Government have discussed whether a judicial inquiry would be right, but have concluded that it would not be right, not least because the judicial system in this country is performing a very effective function in the courts, which is where it belongs. I also want to put it on the record that a dangerous confusion is emerging between extraordinary rendition and torture. They are not the same thing, although both are reprehensible and contrary to the laws and spirit of this country. However, it is important that we do not confuse the two. In Mr. Mohamed's case, there are allegations that he was subject to both, but they are not the same; they are separate. However, they are both wrong and they both need to be addressed fully. In respect of the hon. Gentleman's main point, however, I do not think that the conclusion to be drawn from today's events is that a judicial inquiry is necessary; I draw the conclusion that the judiciary is performing its function extremely vigilantly.

Defence

RAF Lyneham: Weather

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many days RAF Lyneham was closed as a result of recent adverse weather conditions.

[Official Report, 10 February 2010, Vol. 505, c. 970-971W.]

Letter of correction from Mr. Bill Rammell:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 10 February 2010. The total number of hours during which RAF Lyneham was closed as a result of adverse weather conditions was incorrect. The correct answer should have been: (315787)

Between 1 and 17 January, RAF Lyneham closed only once on 6 January between 2.40 am and 3.12 pm, a total of 12 and a half hours. This was to enable the runway to be cleared of snow and ice. This limited period of closure was due to the fact that Lyneham has a short runway and clearance could be completed quickly.