To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the channelling of development assistance in Afghanistan towards traditional shuras or local councils rather than to community development councils. [HL305]

The UK supports the channelling of development assistance both through local councils or traditional shuras and through community development councils, provided such assistance is responsive to community-identified needs, and is linked to the Government of Afghanistan. This is an important way to build trust and legitimacy between communities and government.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to regularising the position of long-resident asylum seekers and other immigrants, following calls for amnesty by the Mayor of London and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. [HL455]

There are no plans to regularise the position of long-resident asylum seekers and other immigrants following calls for an amnesty. The Government have ruled out an amnesty and this remains our position.

To ask Her Majesty's Government for how long an individual has to claim jobseeker’s allowance before taking up a full-time training course while claiming benefits. [HL447]

Jobseeker's allowance recipients may receive access to full-time education or training through the New Deal programme. Recipients are currently required to participate in the mandatory New Deals when they have been receiving benefit continuously for either six months, if aged 18 to 24, or 18 months (or 18 out of the previous 21 months if there has been a break in their claim) if they are aged 25 or over. In the New Deal for Young People, one of the four mandatory options is full-time education or training. The New Deal 25 Plus contains an intensive activity period of at least 13 weeks and one option is work-focused training.

The Flexible New Deal will replace these programmes from October 2009 in the first roll-out areas. It will be a mandatory programme for people unemployed for 12 months, though some may enter earlier. Participants may be offered full-time training on the programme where it is felt necessary for their return to work.

People in certain disadvantaged groups (such as ex-offenders, homeless people, people with literacy and innumeracy needs and others categories) may, subject to capacity, voluntarily enter the New Deal programme at any time and from the first day of their claim.

In addition, from October 2008, DWP introduced changes that mean that the 16-hour study rule in JSA will no longer be a barrier to short employment-focused training. Those who have been receiving JSA for more than six months—or those whom personal advisers believe need urgent help to update skills—will be able to take part in full-time employment-related training for up to eight weeks. In the autumn a pathfinder was set up in the West Midlands to test this new approach and we are encouraging Jobcentre Plus personal advisers to use it at a local level. We are also ready to consider requests to extend the eight-week limit from the most effective city strategy pathfinders, or to look at other innovative proposals.

It does remain a requirement of receiving jobseeker's allowance that the recipient meets the labour market conditions of being available for and actively seeking full-time work. Consequently, just as with the New Deal programmes, a claimant taking part in such training will be moved from jobseeker's allowance and on to a training allowance for the duration of their placement.

Meanwhile, it is recognised that short, full-time training can assist some people in an early return to work, and jobseeker's allowance customers are permitted to study full time for two weeks each year. This flexibility is being used to provide pre-employment training as part of local employer partnerships. A person may, of course, take up other forms of full time training at any time but if the labour market conditions could not be satisfied he or she would not be entitled to jobseeker's allowance while undertaking such training.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation of the National Audit Office, in its report of November 2007 on Managing Risk in the Overseas Territories, that Her Majesty's Government should develop a financial services strategy for the Overseas Territories. [HL398]

The Government have developed a financial services strategy aimed at providing targeted UK assistance to territories where specific vulnerabilities, highlighted in the National Audit Office report, have been identified. Initial discussions on the strategy took place in early 2008 with Whitehall partners and governors. Further discussions were held in April and May 2008 with territory Attorneys-General, police commissioners and territory regulators. This has been followed up with a programme of bilateral engagement with the relevant territory agencies with the aim of drawing up detailed action plans designed to improve capacity and compliance with international standards. The strategy was also discussed with the territories during the annual Overseas Territories Consultative Council meeting in London in October 2008. The Government will continue to work with the Overseas Territories to further develop and implement these action plans.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the alleged threats made to human rights defenders working for communities dispossessed of their lands, following the visit by representatives of European Union embassies in Colombia to Curbarad on 26 November. [HL302]

Officials from our embassy in Bogota took part in the delegation to Curvarado and San Jose de Apartado on 26-28 November, alongside officials from other EU partners, the European Commission, the UN, and civil society organisations such as Peace Brigades International. They did so to reflect our very serious concern, shared by international partners, for the plight of human rights defenders and communities at risk in Colombia, including in Curvarado.

The communities in Curvarado and San Jose de Apartado told the delegation about the continuing threats and intimidation they face, and described a deterioration in the local situation over the past 18 months. Separately, Colombian state officials outlined the measures they are taking to promote these communities' safety, and improve the overall human rights situation in the area. The delegation made clear the EU's support for the human rights defenders who follow and accompany these communities.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they propose to give to the magistracy following the decisions of magistrates' courts in recent cases not to impose banning orders on persons found guilty of racial abuse at football matches. [HL123]

The recent decision by a magistrates’ court not to impose a banning order against an individual who pleaded guilty to the offence of racist chanting during the match between Middlesbrough and Newcastle United on 29 November 2008 is both disappointing and surprising.

The local race harassment case group, which is chaired by the Crown Prosecution Service and includes police, BME and Safer Community representatives from the local authorities, the North East Refugee Service and others, will review this case and take further action if appropriate.

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Football Banning Orders Authority have advised that there is no national pattern of courts refusing to impose banning orders following conviction for racist chanting. Convictions for offences of racist (or indecent) chanting committed during the 2006-07 and 2007-08 football seasons resulted in the imposition of 14 banning orders.

The law is clear that a banning order should be imposed against a person convicted of a football-related offence in connection with a regulated football match, including racist chanting, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that making an order would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with regulated matches.

To ask Her Majesty's Government on how many occasions in each of the past 10 years individuals convicted of crimes involving physical assault on another person resulting in injury have been ordered by courts to pay compensation to the victim amounting to (a) £100 or less; (b) £101 to £250; (c) £251 to £500; (d) £501 to £1,000; and (e) more than £1,000. [HL502]

The requested information is shown in the table below:

(1) Offences of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, racially aggravated malicious wounding, religiously aggravated malicious wounding, racially or religiously aggravated wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, racially aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, racially aggravated common assault, religiously aggravated common assault, racially or religiously aggravated common assault.

Source. OMS Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice.

Ref PO (OMSAS)010-09 (13/01/2009).

These figures have been drawn from administrative data systems.

Although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how much funding they have provided for outreach programmes for victims of domestic violence in each year since 2000. [HL421]

As much of government funding is devolved locally we are unable to identify what has been spent on outreach programmes because local areas will decide how best to prioritise their funding based on local needs.

However, one example is that the Government are providing £30 million (between 2007-11) to help safeguard children by supporting the expansion and integration of the NSPCC helpline services and, on 27 November 2008, Ed Balls announced £22 million for family intervention projects and a “think family” approach across England to help more families at risk, allowing all local authorities to deliver intensive family support for the most vulnerable families.

Another example is the Supporting People programme which provides a significant proportion of revenue funding for housing-related support for victims of domestic violence. In 2006-07, spend on services for victims of domestic violence was £61.6 million, compared with £59.3 million in 2005-06.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why children are not included in the definition of domestic violence on the Home Office website, which says that “domestic violence is any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between adults”. [HL424]

Children are not covered in the current government definition because they are already covered by child protection legislation and procedures. However we do acknowledge the issues raised about widening the definition of domestic violence to include under-18s and consideration of the definition will be covered in our National Domestic Violence Delivery Plan for 2009-10.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of those convicted of domestic violence have subsequently faced charges of domestic violence in relation to a different victim. [HL487]

This information is not collected centrally.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) statutory organisations and (b) specialised voluntary organisations were available in (1) November 1997 and (2) November 2007 for victims of domestic violence. [HL489]

The statutory organisations available for victims of domestic abuse in November 1997 and November 2007 are the police service; the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Offender Management Service (area probation services and HM Prison Service in 1997).

We do not collect information on the number of specialised voluntary organisations available for victims of domestic violence. We do know about the following:

the Department of Health, through Section 64 funding, provides grants to help voluntary organisations whose work supports the Government's health and social care goals. Norfolk Rape Crisis Women's Therapy Centre domestic violence project, FORWARD and the Children's Society family health inclusion have received funding from Section 64;

between 2002 and 2008, the Department of Health has provided 20 streams of funding totalling over £1.95 million to 12 mental health voluntary and community sector organisations providing therapeutic services for victims of abuse. This funding goes towards their central administrative costs and/or innovative projects;

the Department of Health has recently announced £173 million to increase service provision and access to psychological therapies, some of which will help provide services to victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault and rape and child sexual abuse;

under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996) local housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for applicants who are eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless, and who fall within a priority need group. The priority need groups include people who are vulnerable as a result of leaving their home because of violence or threats of violence likely to be carried out. This includes domestic violence. There were 354 local housing authorities in England at November 2007;

independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs) support victims as part of the community response in a specialist domestic violence court (SDVC) system. 104 SDVCs were operating as of October 2008; and

multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) are made up of statutory and voluntary representatives, including the police, children's services, IDVAs, victims support services, health representatives, housing services and probation services. By sharing information, agencies get a better picture of a victim's situations and so develop responses that are tailored to the safety needs of the victims and their children. There are over 100 MARACs in operation.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of cases of domestic violence involves families without children. [HL491]

Information on the proportion of adults who were victims of domestic violence by household type (including households with no children) is routinely published in the annual publication, Crime in England and Wales, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

Figures for 2007-08 are included in the attached table.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which agencies are responsible for providing support services and outreach for victims of domestic abuse; which agencies are responsible for identifying cases of domestic violence; which of these agencies focus primarily on domestic violence; and which consider domestic violence to be a contributory factor in other matters. [HL492]

There are a number of voluntary sector agencies and organisations, such as Women's Aid, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, IMKAAN and Victim Support which provide support services and outreach for victims of domestic violence. In addition, there are specialist independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs) who may be employed by the above organisations or by smaller specialist organisations.

These organisations focus primarily on domestic violence and by their nature identify cases of domestic violence. Further support is also available through witness care units, which are staffed by both police and CPS workers.

There are a wide range of statutory and non-statutory agencies which come into contact with victims of domestic violence and their families. Therefore no one agency is responsible for identifying cases of domestic violence. Both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service identify cases of domestic violence at the earliest opportunity in accordance with their policies and guidance. These agencies do not focus only on domestic violence but are aware of the importance of early identification and intervention in cases of domestic violence.

The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) working with offenders in custody or in the community will also be alert to the possibility of domestic abuse in case assessments. Women safety workers (WSW) work with victims and current partners of men undertaking the accredited domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in custody and in the community in order to promote the safety of women and children. WSW will facilitate referral of women to local women's support services for support, advice and assistance.

Other statutory agencies also have systems in place to identify cases of domestic violence at an early stage. In relation to health, routine enquiry is now well established in antenatal clinics, in 22 accident and emergency departments and, most recently, has been developed in a pilot of 15 mental health trusts. The early data indicate that the majority of women who are admitted to mental health wards have been the victim of either physical or sexual abuse.

Since 2003, administering authorities have been allocated funding through the Supporting People programme, to support the most vulnerable people in their communities, including victims of domestic violence, through the provision of housing related support.

Voluntary sector organisations such as NSPCC, MIND and Age Concern are also aware of the overlap between domestic violence and their work on children, with disabled people and with older people and take domestic violence into account when formulating their policies.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when evidential roadside breath-testing devices will be available to the police service. [HL346]

It is not possible at this point to predict when a roadside evidential breath testing device might be available. For evidence from such a device to be admissible in court, the device must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. Type approval depends on compliance with an appropriate specification. Work to finalise a scientifically justifiable specification is continuing. When the specification is ready it will be for manufacturers to produce devices to comply with it and submit them for testing.

The time to type approval will depend on how quickly manufacturers present devices, how they perform in the necessarily rigorous and time-consuming tests, how soon any necessary adjustments and how soon after approval manufacturers begin commercial production. It will be for individual police forces to decide on the purchase of devices.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the reply by Lord West of Spithead on 8 December (Official Report, House of Lords, col. 145), what is the difference between intrusive and directed purposes for electronic surveillance. [HL246]

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 sets out the relevant legal definitions. Essentially, directed surveillance is covert surveillance of individuals while in a public place for the purposes of a specific investigation or operation in a way that is likely to obtain private information about a person. Intrusive surveillance is covert surveillance which takes place in a private residence or vehicle where individuals would have a higher expectation of privacy.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what rules govern gas and electricity companies estimating meter readings when new prices are applied during a normal charging period. [HL225]

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is responsible for regulating gas and electricity supply. When a supplier introduces a price change it will base the allocation of units to the new and old prices on an estimate, based on the customer's historic consumption record. It would be impracticable for a supplier to obtain an actual meter reading for every customer on the day that a price change took effect. If a customer is unhappy with the estimated allocation of units, he can provide his own meter reading. The supplier must accept this or arrange to read the meter itself.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 10 November (WA 94), (a) for how long gas and electricity companies have been allowed 65 working days after the event to notify customers of a price increase; (b) whether there is any limit on the number of times a supplier may increase prices in the course of a year; and (c) whether the same rules apply to price decreases. [HL226]

The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) is responsible for regulating gas and electricity supply. The rules governing notification of price increases were amended in 2007 following a two-year review of supply licences. As price reductions do not adversely affect customers or trigger transfer of supply by the customer, they are not governed by the same rules. Supply licences do not limit the number of price increases or reductions a supplier may make in a year.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Triesman on 31 January 2007 (WA 50–51), how many times since June 2006 they have overridden the scrutiny reserve of (a) the House of Lords European Union Committee; and (b) the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee. [HL36]

The table below provides information on the number of overrides in each House since the Government began sending twice-yearly lists to the chairmen of the House of Lords European Union Committee and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee every six months. The table has been updated to include figures between July 2006 and June 2008. Figures for the period July-December 2008 will be compiled shortly.

* Figures for the first half of 2005 include a period when Parliament was dissolved and a period immediately after the opening of Parliament before the European Union Committee in the House of Lords and the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons could be appointed.

** Figure corrected from 15 which appeared in the previous answer provided by Lord Triesman. An instrument had been included in error which was acknowledged by the House of Lord European Union Committee in the Annual Report for 2007.

*** The report provided to the Committee also included an additional 4 instruments on which a general approach had been reached before the Committee had completed their scrutiny. Although the Government did not agree that the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution should be interpreted to include the stage of “general approach” until 1 July 2008, these items were included for information.

**** The report provided to the Committee also included an additional 2 instruments on which a general approach had been reached before the Committee had completed their scrutiny. Although the Government did not agree that the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution should be interpreted to include the stage of “general approach” until 1 July 2008, these items were included for information.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose the appointment of a special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for slavery and forced labour. [HL186]

The Government do not intend to propose the appointment of a Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for slavery and forced labour. We believe that the issues are well covered through an initiative we launched in 2007 to establish a new UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery at the fifth session of the Human Rights Council in September 2007. Ms Gulnara Shahinian was appointed to act as Special Rapporteur for a three-year period to focus on contemporary forms of slavery including forced labour and child labour for economic exploitation. Ms. Shahinian took up her mandate on 1 May 2008.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether non-consultant grade doctors from non-European Union countries will be added to the national shortage occupation list for consideration for visas. [HL452]

The Government have asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the shortage occupation lists and report to us by March 2009. The MAC has decided to review the evidence relating to skilled occupations within the health sector. The committee will work with relevant organisations within that sector over the next few weeks to ensure they have the best possible evidence.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many life Peers have been appointed, broken down by party, since the last new appointment of a life Peer following a nomination by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party. [HL428]

The last new appointment of a life Peer following nomination by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party was announced on 13 September 2007. On this date two new Liberal Democrat life Peers were announced and two new Conservative life Peers were announced.

Since then, three life Peers have been appointed following nomination by the Prime Minister and one life Peer has been appointed following nomination by the Leader of the Conservative Party.

In addition, it was announced on 14 January 2009 that Mervyn Davies CBE would become a life Peer (www.number10.gov.uk/Page18003).

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many hours have been spent by the Metropolitan Police assessing applications for demonstrations within one kilometre of Parliament in the past three years. [HL437]

The Home Office does not hold this information. While there is a team within the Metropolitan Police dealing with, among other things, applications for demonstrations within the designated area around Parliament, I understand that the Metropolitan Police are unlikely to be able to quantify the information requested.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in considering legislation for any rights in addition to those in the Human Rights Act 1998, they will introduce a general limitation provision applicable to all new rights, where justified, rather than specific limitations to each new right. [HL462]

Further to my Answer published on 12 January on human rights Questions tabled by the noble Lord (Official Report, cols. WA 105-08). I am now in a position to respond substantively to these Questions. Each Question is referred to by means of the House of Lords number.

As my noble friend and predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in his Written Statement of 29 September¹ responding to earlier Questions for Written Answer asked by the noble Lord, Lord Laird in this area, the Government keep many areas of policy under close review. Although, at this time, there may be no specific proposals in relation to areas cited in the Questions, continuous assessment of the effectiveness of policy in these areas is often being undertaken. In the absence of such proposals now, it should not be inferred that the Government may not bring forward new proposals in future.

My ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are leading work on the framework of rights and responsibilities in the United Kingdom, in the context of which many of these areas will be considered. In addition, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recently published its recommendations for a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. in which context many of these issues will also be considered. Given that both projects are ongoing, I cannot at this time state definitely that any area would he included in or excluded from either of these projects.

Therefore, where this Answer does not specifically address a part of a Question, it indicates that the Government have no specific plans at this time to take the action, but does not necessarily rule out action in relation to that area in the future either in legislation specific to that area, or through the ongoing work on rights and responsibilities. In relation to Questions which may relate to matters that are devolved in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or transferred in Wales, I have responded only in so far as the issue is the responsibility of the Government at Westminster.

Question HL321 is about distinguishing the status of different rights based on their origin. The rights currently contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 are all derived from a single source, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and represent all of the substantive rights by which the United Kingdom is bound under that convention. Were any other right—whether drawn from other treaties to which the United Kingdom is or is not party, or from other sources—to be given legislative force in the United Kingdom, its status would depend entirely on the form of that legislative expression. If any further rights were to be added to the Human Rights Act, save in the circumstances that the United Kingdom ratify further additional protocols to the ECHR, the framework of the Act would require substantive amendment.

Question HL322 concerns the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (EU). The charter records existing rights that already bind EU institutions and by which EU member states, including the United Kingdom, are already bound when implementing EU law. The charter sets out these rights in one place for the first time. At present, the charter is an important political declaration but has no formal legal status in the EU, nor therefore, in the United Kingdom. The entry into force of the Lisbon treaty would make the charter legally binding on EU institutions and the member states when implementing EU law, but it would not change the underlying rights restated in the charter: it merely sets them out in a more accessible form. So the courts would be able to rely on the rights in the charter, but the content of those rights would not be changed. The United Kingdom’s protocol puts this matter beyond doubt by stressing that the charter does not create any greater rights than already apply in EU law and does not extend the powers of any court—European or domestic—to strike down the United Kingdom's laws.

In relation to Question HL323, Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty, to which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gives effect, already requires the Union to respect the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ECHR. In practice, the ECJ already interprets the rights contained in the ECHR and reflected in the charter consistently with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Article 52(3) of the charter clearly states that in so far as the charter contains rights guaranteed by the convention, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the ECHR. Accession of the EU to the ECHR would ensure that the ECJ is formally bound by the case law of the ECtHR. Accession would therefore guarantee the primacy of the ECtHR in setting human rights standards in Europe.

Question HL324 is about the implementation of the judgment of the ECtHR in the Article 2 procedure cases led by Jordan v United Kingdom². The Government have put together a very detailed package of measures to implement the findings of the Strasbourg Court in the six Northern Ireland cases (the McKerr group³). Many steps have already been taken in response to the judgments. The Committee of Ministers has made clear in its public assessments that the United Kingdom has now met many of the requirements of the judgments. We are continuing to work with the Committee of Ministers to resolve the outstanding measures. Four out of the six cases are subject either to inquest proceedings or to review by the historical enquiries team. We await the outcome of those investigations.

Question HL325 related to the deportation or removal of foreign terrorists or terrorist suspects. In the case of Saadi v Italy⁴, the ECtHR confirmed its earlier judgment in Chahal v United Kingdom⁵ that Article 3 is absolute and non-derogable and that the risk posed by the individual could not be balanced against any Article 3 risk in a deportation case. As a signatory to the ECHR, the UK is bound by the case law of the ECtHR.

The prohibition on slavery and forced labour under Article 4 of the ECHR, to which Question HL326 refers, is absolute, allowing of no exceptions or qualifications. It therefore already covers trafficking. The Government have recently ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. This will further strengthen our support to victims of human trafficking for those identified as victims by the competent authorities, who will use a national referral mechanism to refer victims to appropriate support services.

In response to Question HL349, the United Kingdom has not ratified the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR. There are continuing concerns over Articles 2 and 3 of that protocol, which could be taken, respectively, to confer rights in relation to passports and a right of abode on categories of British nationals who do not currently have that right. In the absence of any change in the arrangements for issuing British passports and the relevant provisions of our immigration legislation, it is not possible to ratify the Protocol. Given that protocols may not be ratified in part, the Government have no plans either to ratify Article 1 of the Protocol nor to incorporate it into the Human Rights Act, as the framework of the Act permits incorporation only of those substantive rights by which the United Kingdom is bound under the ECHR. Nevertheless, there exists no provision in the law of England and Wales that directly permits the imprisonment of a person for a failure to fulfil contractual obligations or pay a private debt. Any such deprivation of liberty would therefore lack a lawful basis and constitute a breach of Article 5 of the ECHR.

In relation to Question HL350, the Government indicated in their public consultation paper on the Review of PACE⁶ published in August 2008 that they intended to maintain the existing structure for the codes of practice. This was in response to significant support across the criminal justice system, particularly by the judiciary, for the continuation of the codes in their existing format. Similarly, in relation to Question HL351, the Government do not intend to change the age of criminal responsibility, for the reasons set out by Lord Hunt in his previous response⁷. Lord Hunt also set out in that response the Government's position on the youth justice system⁸.

In relation to trial by jury and the admission of evidence, as covered in Question HL352, I refer the noble Lord again to Lord Hunt's previous response⁹, which also covered the rights of witnesses¹⁰ . The Government have no plans at this time to institute a specific right to protection for jurors, judges or lawyers, but it remains of course the responsibility of the police to provide protection whenever a specific threat is identified.

In response to Question HL353, the Government have no plans to seek amendment of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Question HL354 is about extensions to the right to marry to include a right to divorce or a right to enter a civil partnership. The right to marry under Article 12 of the ECHR, as incorporated in the Human Rights Act, includes neither of these elements; the Government have no plans at this time to seek amendment of Article 12. Our domestic law sets out the circumstances in which a couple may enter into marriage or a civil partnership, and the means by which a marriage or a civil partnership may be terminated; the Government have no plans at this time to change these provisions.

Question HL392 relates to equality and discrimination, in respect of which Lord Hunt set out the Government’s position in his previous response¹¹.

Question HL393 relates to a range of electoral issues. The right to free and fair elections is set out in Article 3 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The ECtHR gives states a broad margin of appreciation in the means by which they give effect to this right, provided the core objective of the “free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature” is achieved.

Question HL394 relates to education levels. Pupils learn about issues relating to equality, social justice and human rights as part of the citizenship curriculum at each key stage. Citizenship education encourages pupils to challenge injustice, inequalities and discrimination. Pupils in primary schools learn the difference between right and wrong, what is fair and unfair, and to understand how to respect the rights of others. They develop a sense of social justice and moral responsibility. Through the statutory citizenship curriculum, all secondary school pupils learn about human rights, responsibilities and freedoms. They consider how democracy, justice, diversity, toleration, respect and freedom are valued by people with different beliefs, backgrounds and traditions within a changing democratic society. They also explore different kinds of rights and obligations and how these affect both individuals and communities.

Question HL396 is about the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR, which I have addressed in response to his Question HL349 above. In the same Question about the applicability of the free movement of persons, services and capital in the European Community (EC) to internal as well as cross-border situations. People who reside in a member state under the EC free movement of persons provisions generally have a right to reside anywhere within that member state. These provisions do not, however, apply to the movement of a member state's own nationals within that state. In general, case law has established that the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services do not apply to situations that are wholly internal to a member state, although certain provisions of the services directive¹² apply equally to cross-border and internal situations. Similarly, the free movement of capital (and payments) applies only in terms of prohibition of restrictions between member states and between member states and third countries. This freedom may in some cases be subject to certain requirements—for example, concerning authorisation or establishment. However, subject to this, the existence of this freedom between member states and between member states and third countries in practice presumes the absence of restrictions within a member state.

In Question HL397 the noble Lord asks whether the Government plan to amend or replace the broad structure of laws relating to offences against the person. The Government have no plans to do so.

In relation to education and the provision of public services in minority languages, as in Question HL429, I refer the noble Lord to Lord Hunt’s previous response on this point¹³. Although the United Kingdom is a party to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Government have no plans to incorporate that charter into domestic law.

Response to Question HL431, is that the right to access information held by public authorities already exists under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998, amongst others. In relation to administrative action, judicial review already allows individuals and groups to challenge the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies; grounds for review include that the decision maker has acted ultra vires, that the decision-making procedure was unfair, or that the decision was unreasonable. As a matter of good practice, public bodies often provide reasons for their decisions, and for those dissatisfied with decisions to challenge them by means of internal review or complaint mechanisms, and/or by access to ombudsman schemes.

The noble Lord’s next block of Questions relate to various aspects of social and economic rights, all of which were addressed in some detail by Lord Hunt in his previous response. In relation to Question HL432 on healthcare, I refer the noble Lord to the earlier response to Question HL3520¹⁴. Reproductive healthcare was also specifically addressed in relation to Question HL3464¹⁵. Standards of living, as raised in Question HL433, were previously addressed in the response to Question HL3519¹⁶, and housing and accommodation, as raised in Question HL434, were covered in the response to Question HL3521¹⁷.

In Question HL434, the noble Lord also specifically asks whether a person can be evicted without an order of a court. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 provides that where premises have been let as a dwelling, the tenant or licensee who is still living in the property cannot lawfully be evicted without a possession order from the court. There are certain exceptions: for example, where accommodation is shared with the landlord, holiday lets, and licences or tenancies granted as a temporary expedient to trespassers. It is usually a criminal offence to harass or evict a residential occupier, or to enter the property against their wishes while they are in it.

Question HL458, about the right to work, was extensively covered in the previous response to Question HL3553¹⁸ and the trade union aspects thereof were also addressed in response to Question HL3491¹⁹. The protection of the environment, as raised in Question HL459, was covered in the response to Question HL3522²⁰, and the situation in relation to social security (Question HL460) was previously set out in response to Question HL3554²¹. The rights of the child (Question HL461), including specifically recruitment into the Armed Forces, were covered in the response to Question HL3665²². The principle of best interest was also discussed in response to Questions HL3488²³ and HL3619²⁴.

Question HL462 is about limitations on rights. The nature of different rights often requires differences in the qualifications and limitations upon those rights, as illustrated in the subtle differences between the qualifications and limitations upon Articles 8 to 11 of the ECHR. If any other rights are given legislative force, the form of their legislative expression would be considered at that time.

Finally, in answer to Question HL463, and further to Lord Hunt’s previous response to Question HL3667²⁵, the Government have no plans to repeal Sections 15 and 17 of the Human Rights Act; doing so would not remove the United Kingdom’s reservation to the First Protocol to the ECHR, but would remove the obligation to review that reservation periodically and report to Parliament. The need for reservations to new international obligations is considered at the time that the United Kingdom signs and ratifies any such obligation; the Government will not prevent this important consideration taking place in future.

1 Official Report, 29 September 2008, WS 180-204

2 Application 24746/94, judgment of 4 May 2001

3 Application 28883/95, judgment of 4 May 2001

4 Application 37201/06, judgment of 28 February 2008

5 Application 22414/93, judgment of 15 November 1996

6 PACE Review: Government proposals in response to the Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2008-pace-review/

7 supra n.1: HL3619 at WS 200

8 supra n.1: HL3461 at WS 182; HL3619 at WS 200-1

9 supra n.1: HL3556 at WS 197

10 supra n.1: HL3558 at WS 198; HL3617 at WS 199

11 supra n.1: HL3462 at WS 183

12 Directive 2006/123/EC

13 supra n.1: HL3492 at WS 190

14 supra n.1 at WS 192

15 supra n.1 at WS 185

16 supra n.1 at WS 192

17 supra n.1 at WS 193

18 supra n.1 at WS 194-5

19 supra n.1 at WS 189

20 supra n.1 at WS 193

21 supra n.1 at WS 195

22 supra n.1 at WS 202-4

23 supra n.1 at WS 186-7

24 supra n.1 at WS 200

25 supra n.1 at WS 181

To ask Her Majesty's Government why the UK Border Agency has not replied to the application by Mrs SA, acknowledged on 8 March 2007, for the restrictions on her leave to remain in the United Kingdom to be lifted following the expiry of two years as the spouse of a British citizen. [HL442]

I regret to inform you that any information contained in applications to the Home Office is treated as being confidential and is not normally disclosed to third parties. This is, of course, unless they are authorised representatives of the applicant. I hope that you will understand that this is not a question of secrecy for its own sake, but simply a matter of protecting the privacy of the individual.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage appropriate international and local observer missions to monitor the May 2009 presidential election in Malawi. [HL61]

We have encouraged both the EU and Commonwealth to deploy election observer missions, but the final decision rests with those organisations. Our high commission in Malawi intends to observe polling on 19 May in different parts of the country, and will co-ordinate activities with other international observers.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what maximum penalty the suspected pirates captured by HMS “Cumberland” on 11 November and transferred to Kenyan police custody on 18 November may face under Kenyan law; and whether this was considered before transferring the suspects to the Kenyan police. [HL472]

The alleged pirates captured by HMS “Cumberland” on 11 November and transferred to Kenyan jurisdiction have been charged with piracy. Under Kenyan law this carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. When deciding whether the alleged pirates could be transferred to Kenyan custody, consideration was given as to whether the death penalty applied to piracy under Kenyan law, which it does not.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many separate databases are used by police in the United Kingdom in their anti-crime, anti-serious crime and anti-terrorist work; and what steps are being taken to streamline and rationalise the availability and accessibility of intelligence for Special Branch operatives. [HL468]

Details of the databases used by the police, including Special Branch, in the United Kingdom, are not held centrally.

Streamlining and rationalising existing police intelligence databases will form part of the strategy for the police use of information and communications technology over the next 10 years.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions and how many convictions there have been under Section 30 (man living on earnings of prostitution) and Section 31 (woman exercising control over prostitute) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, or their replacement provisions in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in each of the past 10 years. [HL71]

The information requested can be viewed in the attached table.

These data are on the principal-offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

— Nil

(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

(3) Staffordshire Police Force was only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

Source: OCJR—E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence & Analysis Unit

Our ref: IOS 598-08 (Table) [Contribution for PQs HL71 to HL75]

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions and how many convictions there have been under Section 52 (causing or inciting prostitution for gain) or Section 53 (controlling prostitution for gain) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in each of the past five years. [HL72]

The information requested can be viewed in the attached table.

These data are on the principal-offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

— Nil

(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

(3) Staffordshire Police Force was only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

Source: OCJR—E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence & Analysis Unit

Our ref: IOS 598-08 (Table) [Contribution for PQs HL71 to HL75]

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions and how many convictions there have been under Section 33 (keeping a brothel) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 in each of the past 10 years. [HL73]

The information requested can be viewed in the attached table.

These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

— Nil

(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

(3) Staffordshire Police Force was only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

Source: OCJR—E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence & Analysis Unit

Our ref: IOS 598-08 (Table) [Contribution for PQs HL71 to HL75]

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions and how many convictions there have been for loitering and soliciting under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 in each of the past 10 years. [HL74]

The information requested can be viewed in the attached table.

These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

— Nil

(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

(3) Staffordshire Police Force was only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

Source: OCJR—E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence & Analysis Unit.

Our ref: IOS 598-08 (Table) [Contribution for PQs HL71 to HL75]

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many prosecutions and how many convictions there have been under Section 57 (trafficking into the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation), Section 58 (trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation) and Section 59 (trafficking out of the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in each of the past five years. [HL75]

The information requested can be viewed in the attached table.

These data are on the principal offence basis. The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences, the offence selected is the one for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

— Nil

(1) These data are on the principal offence basis.

(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

(3) Staffordshire Police Force was only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

Source: OCJR—E&A: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Evidence & Analysis Unit

Our ref: IOS 598-08 (Table) [Contribution for PQs HL71 to HL75]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to repeal the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 that prevent demonstrations in Parliament Square without police permission; and, if so, when. [HL436]

The Government announced their intention in March 2008 to repeal Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. These provisions were included in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill last Session.

I can assure the noble Baroness that we remain strongly committed to constitutional renewal and our aim is to bring a Bill forward in the spring, subject to the parliamentary timetable.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been detained and how many fines have been issued as a result of demonstrations that contravened the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. [HL438]

Data showing the number of persons given a custodial sentence and fined for selected offences under the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act from 2005 to 2007 (the latest available) are in the attached table.

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(1) The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force on 1 August 2005.

(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, how many (a) persons were arrested in each year since 2005, including 2008 to date; (b) persons in each of those groups were sent to trial; (c) persons in each of those groups were found guilty; and (d) persons in each of those groups were given a custodial sentence. [HL443]

The Home Office does not hold this arrest data centrally. I shall write to the noble Lord once I have received that information from the Metropolitan Police.

Data showing the number of persons proceeded against, committed for trial, found guilty and given a custodial sentence under selected sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act from 2005 to 2007 (the latest available) are in the attached table.

The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(1) The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force on 1 August 2005.

(2) The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Source: E&A Unit—Office for Criminal Justice Reform.

Ref: IOS 619-08.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why Mr Abdul Majid Hassan Ismail (reference J1104674), is being deported to Sudan on 11 December; and how his deportation relates to the Home Office announcement in July 2008 that there would be no enforced removals of non-Arab Darfuri asylum seekers until the outcome of the guidance case is known. [HL202]

Any request for information regarding individual cases is treated as being confidential by the UK Border Agency and is not normally disclosed to third parties. This is, of course, unless they are authorised representatives of the applicant. This is not a question of secrecy for its own sake, but simply a matter of protecting the privacy of the individual.

The policy on the return of Sudanese nationals whose claim for asylum has been unsuccessful remains as announced on 9 July 2008. The Government will defer enforcing the return of non-Arab Darfuri asylum seekers to Sudan pending the outcome of a country guidance case which is due to be heard by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in the near future.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose the establishment of a comprehensive study of all United Nations peacekeeping forces to consider (a) the forces' short, medium and long-term needs and effectiveness; (b) their replacement, where possible, by observers and inspectors; and (c) their current adverse effects. [HL187]

We are committed to the implementation of the key principles set out in the report of the high-level panel on United Nations peacekeeping operations (2001).

The UK plays a leading role in the UN Security Council in making sure that peacekeeping operations are properly managed. We are strong supporters of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, and will continue to work to ensure that the UN has the resources it needs to do a difficult job on behalf of the international community.

International resources—human, material and financial—for peacekeeping are limited. That means we will only deliver the highest quality peacekeeping in the areas where the need is greatest if we rigorously prioritise elsewhere. We are committed to working with the UN, other Security Council members and current and potential troop-contributing countries to ensure this is done.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many United Kingdom members of United Nations peacekeeping forces have been (a) charged with and (b) convicted of sexual offences while on missions during the past 10 years. [HL188]

There is one reported incident of a UK member of a UN peacekeeping force having been charged with a sexual offence during the past 10 years.

Following an investigation the accused was returned to the UK to be tried by court martial for offences contrary to Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The individual was found not guilty.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish the findings of the Visa Waiver Test, and the outcome of the dialogue on mitigation with Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela, announced by the Home Secretary on 10 July. [HL339]

Work on mitigation actions with those countries recommended for the imposition of a visa regime continued for the full six-month mitigation period ending on 2 January 2009. We expect to make announcements on the final outcome of the visa waiver test in the first part of this year.