To ask Her Majesty's Government whether interception-based advertising that uses deep packet inspection is consistent with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [HL2155]

The noble Baroness is referring to a form of targeted online advertising that uses this technology to deliver advertisements based upon the online behaviours of customers. It is not at all clear that targeted online advertising is interception, and if indeed it is interception, whether it is a breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It may also be relevant to note that communications companies are able to intercept communications as a function of conducting their business. They might do this to stop unwanted email messages or potentially harmful viruses that would otherwise cripple our communications networks.

The Government provided for the offence of unlawful interception within RIPA and I am informed the Crown Prosecution Service is looking at one particular use of this technology and has yet to conclude whether or not there is a case to answer.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the Simmonds/Ferozuddin report Support to the Health Sector in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, dated 30 December 2008. [HL2343]

The report's recommendations and options are currently being considered by the UK provincial reconstruction team in Helmand.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what support they will give to the Environment Agency to increase the number of farmers attending the agency's courses on reducing soil pollution and salvaging contaminated land. [HL2596]

The Environment Agency does not have any specific courses on contaminated land and soil pollution for farmers. The Environment Agency provides advice in Best Farming Practices, which contains government-backed advice on reducing and preventing soil pollution, and can be downloaded from its website.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) anti-social behaviour orders, and (b) cautions, have been issued for behaviour on public transport, at bus shelters and in railway stations in each of the last five years; and how many of the anti-social behaviour orders included bans from those places. [HL2609]

Centrally collected information on anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued does not identify the specific location in which the behaviour took place. The prohibitions contained in an ASBO may specify a particular area or place where the defendant is forbidden to enter, but this information is not centrally collected. Data held by the Ministry of Justice on cautions do not identify the location of the offending behaviour resulting in the issuing of a caution, beyond the description provided in the statute under which the caution was issued.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why they classify the Army's manning and training margin and service children's education as administration costs. [HL1735]

The MoD’s cost of defence taxonomy comprises five high-level categories: force elements, equipment capability, estate and information systems, recruitment and training and administration costs. The Army manning and training margin (which comprises the costs of personnel who are performing individual training, or who are recuperating from operations, or are on statutory leave) and service children’s education are unique categories of expenditure which do not readily correspond to the main defence outputs in the cost of defence taxonomy. They therefore appear under the heading of administration costs. The department is continuing to develop the taxonomy so that it better reflects the totality of defence business.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many HM Court Service warrants more than 180 days old had not been returned to the courts by the bailiffs concerned, at the latest date for which the data are available. [HL2511]

The private bailiff companies who are contracted to execute warrants on behalf of Her Majesty's Court Service currently hold 23,349 warrants which are over the 180-day execution period. These warrants are being held with the authorisation of the courts for the following reasons:

the private bailiff company can demonstrate sufficient evidence to show that they will be able to execute the warrant after the 180-day period;

a payment plan has been agreed between the defaulter and the private bailiff company but full payment will only be received after the 180-day period;

the warrant has been cancelled by the court but remains on the private bailiff company records awaiting the scheduled return time to the court; and

the private bailiff company is undertaking specific targeted operations to gather additional information on the warrant which could assist the court with further enforcement.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend that all bailiffs should be certificated. [HL2512]

The intention is that all bailiffs, with the exception of Crown employees, should be regulated not certificated. The Government’s preferred option for this regulation is by way of Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence. The extended and enhanced certification process, contained in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, will only be implemented if there is a significant time delay in the introduction of regulation by the SIA.

The interim measures announcement in the Written Ministerial Statement on 17 March 2009 will allow for tightening and improvement to the current court certification process and allow for more ready access to it. However, the requirement to undertake the certification process to act as a bailiff will not be extended. This will be a matter for full regulation.

To ask Her Majesty's Government with respect to Clause 46 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill (a) what steps they are taking to address the concerns of the Government of the Isle of Man; (b) whether it is their view that British citizens who are Manx should be subject to the same controls as citizens of the Republic of Ireland; and (c) whether the Isle of Man was included in the public consultation that took place on the Common Travel Area; and, if not, for what reason. [HL2044]

We have made it clear that there will be no routine immigration controls on passengers travelling between the Crown dependencies and the United Kingdom, nor will we require passengers to carry a passport or national identity card on these routes. Instead we will respond flexibly to threats, increasing intelligence-led controls in response to the level of threats. Beyond this limited activity, we do not propose any significant change in practice on these routes. The free movement for the vast majority of those who use these routes will not alter.

This differs from our intentions for air and sea routes between the Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom, where we propose to adopt more routine intelligence-led immigration controls and where passengers travelling on these routes will be required to carry a passport or national identity card.

Immigration controls on routes between the Crown dependencies and the UK (including the routes between the Isle of Man and the UK) were not included in the 24 July consultation paper or the accompanying partial impact assessment and there has been no specific public consultation on this regarding the Crown dependencies because we do not intend any significant change of practice on these routes.

There are regular working-level contacts with the insular immigration services and they have been involved throughout the policy development process. The draft legislation was passed to the Crown dependencies more formally, through the Ministry of Justice, in December 2008.

Further discussions with the Crown dependencies have resulted in an agreement with the Isle of Man to work towards a Memorandum of Understanding on the issue of Common Travel Area reform which will clearly set out the policy intentions of the United Kingdom in respect of this route and that the status of British citizens who are Manx will not be compromised.

We will continue to work closely with the Government of the Isle of Man as we progress with our reform of the Common Travel Area.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will calculate the premiums payable by the banks under the recently announced scheme by which the Government will guarantee loans made to companies with annual turnovers of less than £500 million. [HL932]

The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) is using a number of established risk-pricing methodologies developed and approved by ECGD and KPMG to calculate the premia payable by banks participating in the working capital scheme announced by the noble friend the Secretary of State on 14 January 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report Children talking to ChildLine about suicide, published by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which shows that the number of children calling ChildLine who are suicidal has tripled in the past five years. [HL2486]

We must all do everything possible to help the most vulnerable children in society, including those who feel suicidal, and to ensure that they receive the support they need. That is why the Government are investing £30 million to expand significantly the NSPCC's Helpline services. This will mean that more children can be given expert advice and counselling.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their purchasing of chocolate products favours those with Fairtrade certification; and whether they will encourage British cocoa manufacturers to follow the example of Cadbury plc by paying guaranteed minimum prices to cocoa producers. [HL2431]

The UK Government encourage their catering suppliers to offer products carrying Fairtrade or other ethical labels. The Department for International Development (DfID) and the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) have developed guidance on fair trade in public procurement. The new guidance aims to maximise the use of fair trade and other ethically labelled products by government departments within strict EU procurement rules. The guidance is available on the OGC website at www.ogc.gov.uk/.

The UK Government welcome Cadbury's recent decision to move to Fairtrade certification for its Cadbury's Dairy Milk product. We hope that this will set a new standard for the chocolate industry. When appropriate opportunities arise we will encourage other companies to deepen their commitment to development including more widespread application of Fairtrade certification.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have forecast the effect of climate change on the centre of London over the next 50 years; and, if so, whether they will publish the findings. [HL2456]

HM Government have funded development of the UK climate projections, which, based on the latest climate science, will provide data on what the future climate of the UK will look like up to 2099. The UK climate projections will provide information on a number of climatic variables, such as temperature, sea level rise and rainfall, at a resolution of 25km. They will therefore take account of regional variability and cover individual regions such as London. The UK climate projections are an update of the previous UKCIP02 climate scenarios.

We are aiming to launch the UK climate projections in early summer, when Parliament is in session.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made by the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate in drawing up the main considerations relevant to decisions to be made under Section 28 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. [HL2611]

The Lord Advocate and I propose to make a joint statement when Section 28 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 comes into force.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 19 March (WA 70–71), whether they will consider ending the practice of Northern Ireland magistrates deciding whether a case merits two counsel and introducing into Northern Ireland law a rule such as that in the Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 setting out the circumstances in which more than one advocate may be allowed in criminal proceedings. [HL2523]

The current statutory provisions which determine the level and number of legal representatives assigned to a defendant in criminal proceedings in Northern Ireland are being reviewed.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in respect of the duties described in rule 52.8(13) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (SI 2005/384), HM Courts Service ensures that there is compliance with the rule that “the person charged with the execution of any such warrant as aforesaid shall as soon as practicable send to the court officer for the court that issued it a written account of the costs”. [HL2440]

Her Majesty's Court Service receives regular written accounts from the companies contracted to execute warrants on their behalf as mandated within the contracts with these companies. These accounts detail, on an individual case basis, the amount of the fine collected and the fees and costs levied against the individual.

To ask Her Majesty's Government for the most recent period for which data is available, what percentage of executed warrants issued by the Greater London magistrates' courts have had written accounts of costs and charges submitted in line with rule 52.8(13) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (SI 2005/384); and what were the average, maximum and minimum amount of cost or charge under each category under which costs and charges are claimed. [HL2441]

A written account of all costs and charges for executed warrants issued by the Greater London magistrates’ courts has been submitted by the company contracted to execute these warrants.

For the period 1 April 2008 to 28 February 2009 the average amount of cost or charge levied was £161.49, the minimum cost was zero (in cases where the fine amount only was paid and was a relatively small amount and a commercial decision was made by the company not to pursue the defaulter for the costs) and the maximum cost was £11,000.

A more detailed breakdown of these figures by category is not available.

To ask Her Majesty's Government in respect of the wording of rule 52.8(13) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (SI 2005/384), what legislation sets out and authorises a person to charge the “proper costs and charges of the execution of the warrant”. [HL2442]

The relevant primary legislation is Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the necessary implication of which is that proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable. There is also common law authority that such costs may be added (Cook v Plaskett (1882) 47 JP 265).

To ask Her Majesty's Government what evidence there is that Criminal Records Bureau checks have reduced the incidence of child abuse. [HL2555]

Analysis from independent research conducted by Ipsos MORI between 2004 and 2007 indicates that the CRB is making a real difference to the protection of children and vulnerable adults; 80,000 unsuitable people have had offers of employment which involved working with children and vulnerable adults withdrawn on the basis of information contained on their disclosure. Many more unsuitable people are thought to be deterred from applying to work with children as a result of the requirement for a CRB check.

This analysis also demonstrates that users of the Criminal Records Bureau's (CRB) service feel that the information provided on disclosures is useful when making recruitment decisions. More than eight out of 10 customers (83 per cent) say CRB checks improves their ability to protect children and the vulnerable adults and nearly nine out of 10 customers (88 per cent) say CRB checks improves their confidence in their recruitment decisions.

Almost three in four members (72 per cent) of the general public think that the CRB is making a difference to the protection of children and vulnerable adults in this country. Over the past three years, as public awareness of the CRB increases, there has also been a reduction of around seven percentage points in the number of people worried about children and vulnerable adults becoming a victim of crime by those caring for them.

The research shows that customer satisfaction levels are at an all-time high, reflecting the year-on-year improvements made by the CRB.

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what circumstances someone must undergo multiple Criminal Records Bureau checks; and for what reasons. [HL2556]

The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) recognises that there are individuals who move frequently between short-term appointments and may not wish to apply for a fresh CRB check each time they seek a new position, especially if this occurs very frequently.

The CRB advises that organisations can accept a previously issued disclosure at their own risk but make the limitations and risks of doing so very clear. This information can be found on the CRB website at www.crb.gov.uk.

There are good reasons why a disclosure that is issued for one position may not be suitable for other positions, including:

disclosures are primarily designed to be used by an organisation at the point of recruitment for a particular position, whether as an employee or a volunteer;

conviction or other relevant information can be recorded against an individual at any point after a disclosure is issued; and

the disclosure process may also include a search to establish whether an individual is subject to a direction under Section 142 of the Education Act 2002, the Protection of Children Act and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (PoCA and PoVA) lists.

Legislation governing these lists, as set by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department of Health, requires fresh checks of the lists for certain positions involving work with children and vulnerable adults, regardless of any previous existing checks. This may limit the ability for recruiting organisations to accept previously issued disclosures.

It is ultimately for each recruiting organisation and not the CRB to decide whether a fresh disclosure should be applied for. The recruiting organisation, using a range of pre-recruitment checks, is best placed to assess whether disclosure is required for a specific position, bearing in mind their legal and other responsibilities. The overriding consideration must always be the safety of those whom the disclosure service is designed to protect.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 201), how much of the unallocated provision in the Department for International Development's budget for 2007–08 was spent by the end of the year. [HL2232]

The Department for International Development's Resource DEL departmental unallocated provision (DUP) for 2007-08 was fully allocated to programmes by the end of the year. The underspend against total resource DEL for 2007-08 was £85,191,000, representing 1.9 per cent of the resource DEL budget of £4,563,685,000.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 201), what are the sporting activities linked to the London Olympic Games; in which countries the £650,000 to support the International Inspiration programme will be used; and which projects it will fund; and [HL2233]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer to HL1589 by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 201), why activities to increase participant interest in developing countries are being administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. [HL2234]

International Inspiration is delivered in partnership by UK Sport, British Council and UNICEF UK with the support of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, the British Olympic Foundation and the British Paralympic Association. International Inspiration was launched by the Prime Minister in January 2008.

So far £23.79 million has been committed to the International Inspiration programme. This includes a commitment from the British Council to match fund future income up to a total of £10.46 million. Funding has also been committed by DCMS (£0.28 million), DfID (£7.4 million), the Premier League (£4.2 million) and UNICEF UK (£1.45 million). Of this, £7.8 million is attributable to programme costs since the start of the programme in October 2007. In addition, UK Sport is committing in the region of £2.1 million as value in kind over the lifetime of the programme to 2013-14.

The Department for International Development has provided £1.65 million funding for the financial year 2008-09 as part of its overall contribution of £7.4 million to the International Inspiration programme. The Government Olympic Executive, part of the Department for Culture Media and Sport, is responsible for the programme.

The countries supported by the programme in 2008-09 were Azerbaijan, Brazil, India, Palau and Zambia. The programme will be rolled out to five further countries, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Mozambique and Trinidad and Tobago, starting in 2009-10.

The projects supported by this funding will help children and young people in developing countries take part in high quality PE and sport through:

training for teachers, teacher trainers, sport coaches, community coaches, activists, volunteers, officials and young leaders to deliver high-quality and inclusive PE, sport and play activities linked to development of life skills for children and young people in schools and communities;

support for grassroots sport and play programmes aimed at increasing participation and addressing social and community development issues such as HIV/AIDS education and girls’ empowerment;

engagement with policy-makers and key sport, education and social development officials in each country in a dialogue on the benefits of PE, sport and play as a tool to deliver existing youth, development and education policies.

The programme’s outcomes are intended to help support the achievement of millennium development goals, specifically those in primary education, the promotion of gender equality and empowering equality and achieving health objectives, in particular towards combating HIV and AIDS. International Inspiration seeks to support poverty reduction strategies in countries where sport has been identified as a key driver to help to achieve millennium development goals.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 202), what was the proportion contributed by the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in the conflict prevention pool for 2000–08; and what sums were transferred between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development for this purpose at this time last year. [HL2311]

Details of transfers undertaken in the Spring Supplementary Estimates (SSEs) 2007-08 relating to the conflict pools are available in the published SSEs of the respective departments.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 202), whether Returns and Repatriation count as Overseas Development Aid; whether the Department for International Development has funded any of this in previous years; and, if not, whose budget it came from. [HL2312]

Most of the projects funded by the Returns and Reintegration Fund do not count as Official Development Assistance (ODA).

The Returns and Reintegration Fund was launched in April 2008 to which the Department for International Development contributed a total of £5 million in 2008-09.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 203), what funds were transferred from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Department for International Development in (a) 2008–09, and (b) 2007–08; whether any transfers are planned for 2009–10; and what funds were transferred from the Department for International Development to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence during those periods. [HL2313]

The following budget transfers took place from/to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to/from the Department for International Development (DfID) during

(a) 2008-09

from MoD to DfID—£1,970,000;

from FCO to DfID—£1,654,000;

from DfID to MoD—£47,807,000; and

from DfID to FCO—£37,413,000.

(b) 2007-08

from MoD to DfID—nil;

from FCO to DfID—£18,180,000;

from DfID to MoD—£29,292,000; and

from DfID to FCO—£12,423,000.

Some transfers are planned for 2009-10 from DfID to the FCO and MoD to allocate funds for the Conflict Prevention Pool; the final amounts are not yet known.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Tunnicliffe on 9 March (WA 203), by how much the United Kingdom's Overseas Development Allowance GNI ratio will change; what it was in 2008; what it is projected to be in (a) 2009 and (b) 2010; and what it will be now. [HL2314]

The budget transfers to other government departments in the Department for International Development's Spring Supplementary Estimate 2008-09 will reduce the United Kingdom's official development assistance to GNI ratio (ODA/GNI) by a maximum of 0.002 per cent. The ODA/GNI ratio in 2008 was 0.43 per cent, and was projected in the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 to be 0.48 per cent in 2009 and 0.56 per cent in 2010.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the forthcoming White Paper on aid and development policy will ensure that all such policies are conflict-sensitive. [HL1974]

The public consultation document for the forthcoming White Paper on international development sets out a range of issues that the Government are seeking to consider. These include matters relating to conflict sensitivity. This document is available on the Department for International Development’s (DfID) website at: http://consultation. dfid.gov.uk/

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the forthcoming White Paper on aid and development will support working partnerships between schools, universities, professional bodies, trade unions, local communities and other parts of civil society in the United Kingdom and similar bodies in developing countries. [HL2010]

The public consultation document for the forthcoming White Paper on international development sets out a range of issues that the Government are seeking to consider. These include those relating to civil society.

The public consultation document is available on the Department for International Development's (DfID) website at http://consultation.dfid.gov.uk/.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of any link between organised crime, terrorism and the khat trade. [HL2577]

No such assessment has been undertaken.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many applications for the education maintenance allowance for the current school year remain unprocessed; what steps they are taking to clear the backlog; and when it will be completed. [HL2518]

This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) which operates the education maintenance allowance (EMA) for the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). The LSC's acting chief executive, Geoff Russell, will write to the noble Lord with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by the Lord President (Baroness Royall of Blaisdon) on 9 March (WA 204), what was the full cost of bringing Mr Ian Withers to court. [HL2084]

The Public Prosecution Service handles a large number of cases in the magistrates' court each year. For the year 2007-08, the number was 30,571. Each case will involve work by both administrative and legal staff, and the cost of individual cases can be calculated only in general terms. Given that this was a straightforward matter and just one of the many cases on the list prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor at Larne Magistrates’ Court that day, the estimate of the cost to the Public Prosecution Service would be less than £50.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the average interest rate being offered to lenders by each bank participating in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme. [HL2186]

Decisions concerning the terms and conditions and policy of loans remain commercial decisions for banks and building societies. Under the enterprise finance guarantee an additional premium of 2 per cent is payable although the Government have announced a 25 per cent discount for this year only giving an additional premium rate of 1.5 per cent.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) legal and (b) illegal firearms they estimate are in the United Kingdom. [HL2542]

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) legal and (b) illegal firearms they estimate entered the United Kingdom last year, or in the most recent year for which figures are available. [HL2543]

To ask Her Majesty's Government which regions or cities they estimate have the largest concentration of illegal weapons; and in which regions or cities they believe illegal weapons to be most readily available to buy. [HL2544]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made estimates of the cost of purchasing (a) an illegal handgun, (b) an illegal rifle, and (c) an illegal submachine gun in the United Kingdom; and, if so, what those estimates are. [HL2545]

We do not hold this information.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people were convicted of (a) possession, and (b) use of an illegal firearm, in (1) 1997, and (2) the most recent year for which figures are available. [HL2546]

The number of persons found guilty at all courts for offences relating to possession and to use of an illegal firearm in England and Wales for the years 1997 and 2007 can be viewed in the attached table. Information for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the. Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office respectively.

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.

Court proceedings data for 2008 will be available in the autumn of 2009.

(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) Includes the following statutes and corresponding offence descriptions:

Firearms Act 1968 (Group I) Sec 1(1), as amended by the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, Sec. 157, Sch. 8 part III. Possessing etc firearm or ammunition without firearm certificate.

Firearms Act 1968, Sec 2(1) (Group II) as amended by Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994, Sec. 157 Sch. 8 part III. Possessing etc shot gun without certificate.

Firearms Act, 1968 Sec 5(1) (Group I) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 S.288 Possessing or distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition.

Firearms Act 1968 Sec 5(1A)(a) (Group I) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sec.288 Possessing or distributing firearm disguised as other object.

Firearms Act 1968 Sec 5(1A) (b),(c),(d)(e),(f) or (g) as amended by Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sec.288 Possessing or distributing other prohibited weapons.

(4) It is not possible to separately identify those convictions that pertain to possessing and those to distributing prohibited weapons or ammunition.

Source: Office for Criminal Justice Reform—Ministry of Justice.

Our ref: IOS 195-09 (Table)

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will discuss with the Government of Egypt the opening of the Rafah crossing, so as to allow access to Gaza for the transport of materials for reconstruction. [HL2042]

Rafah has limited capacity and the present agreement between the Egyptian authorities and the authorities in Gaza is for people only to cross into and out of Gaza. Due to this the UK Government have not raised the issue of the transport of materials for reconstruction through the Rafah crossing with the Egyptian Government. The UK Government continue to press the Israeli Government for improved access and for a relaxation of restrictions on the type of goods that are allowed across the border from Israel into Gaza.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they and the quartet will take to ensure that sufficient food supplies reach Gaza. [HL2308]

The UK Government and the quartet have been consistently lobbying for unrestricted access for food and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza. The Israeli Government announced on 22 March that they will lift restrictions and allow all food products into Gaza.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the consequences of the partial blockade of Gaza for the mental health of the population. [HL2385]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have contributed to the costs of the Gaza community mental health programme; and, if so, how much. [HL2389]

According to the World Health Organisation, stress caused by the recent conflict is a key factor in a wide range of mental health and psychosocial problems. Children and adolescents are particularly at risk. Of the total affected population, approximately 25,000 to 50,000 people will need some form of psychological intervention to address long-term effects of the conflict.

The Department for International Development (DfID) does not provide funding to the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP). However, DfID has provided £409,000 to Mercy Corps for nine family drop-in centres to provide activities to improve the emotional well-being of children, and support to parents to deal with their children's problems. Other DfID-funded projects also have a psychosocial element: the Welfare Association gives support to the disabled, Islamic Relief are working with primary school children and their parents, and Save the Children are providing psychosocial activities in eight play areas. Organisations working in the mental health sector, including the ones that DfID fund, collaborate with GCMPH in their work.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many counterterrorism exercises each department conducted (a) last year, and (b) in each other year for which figures are available. [HL1932]

The locus of UK counterterrorist exercising is the counterterrorism (CT) exercise programme administered by the Home Office which oversees the delivery of CT exercises. The programme is run in conjunction with the police and, depending on the nature of the exercise, involves the participation of other emergency services, government departments and agencies, the military, local authorities, health providers, scientists and technical specialists. The programme includes both live and tabletop exercises. Between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2009, the programme delivered 31 national live counterterrorist exercises highlighted in the attached table.

In addition to those delivered by the national exercise programme, some departments individually conduct or participate in smaller-scale internal or bilateral exercises some of which are CT in nature. The information in relation to these is not held centrally.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which information technology contracts with a value of £50 million or over have been entered into by the Attorney-General's Office since 1997; and which of those have been completed to budget, to time and to specification. [HL2713]

The Attorney-General's Office has not entered into any information technology contracts with a value of £50 million or over.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which information technology contracts with a value of £50 million or over have been entered into by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport since 1997; and which of those have been completed to budget, to time and to specification. [HL2718]

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has let no information technology contracts of that value.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which organophosphate chemicals and other anticholinesterase chemical and medicinal products are licensed for use in the United Kingdom; and what is the purpose for which they are licensed. [HL2559]

The details of those medicines, pesticides and veterinary medicines licensed for use in the UK containing organophosphate chemicals or other anticholinesterase active substances have been placed in the House Library.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many research projects commissioned by the Ministry of Defence into Gulf War Illnesses have been placed with researchers at King's College, London, and how many have been placed with other institutions, since 1997. [HL2560]

The Ministry of Defence funded a research project investigating neuromuscular symptoms in Gulf veterans conducted by the Department of Psychological Medicine at Guy’s, King’s & St Thomas’ School of Medicine. The MoD also funded the third phase of research undertaken by King’s College consisting of a longitudinal study of the changing health of Gulf veterans over time and a further analysis of the health of a Bosnia cohort examined in earlier studies, which was funded by the US Department of Defence. The MoD has been guided on the research to be undertaken into Gulf veterans’ illnesses by the Medical Research Council. The cost of the research to date is some £9 million. Information about the individual projects, researchers and organisations engaged to conduct the work is provided below. Note: all work except the rehabilitation has been completed.

Anthropological study into Gulf War syndrome— Ms S Kilshaw (University College, London).

Cancer study—Professor G Macfarlane (University of Manchester).

Longitudinal study of changing health in Gulf veterans—M Hotopf/Professor A David/Professor S Wessely (Department of Psychological Medicine, Guy’s, King’s & St Thomas’s School Of Medicine) (Third Phase).

Mortality/Morbidity—Professor G Macfarlane/ Dr N Cherry (University of Manchester).

Mortality/morbidity linkages study—Dr N Cherry (University of Manchester).

Neuromuscular symptoms in Gulf veterans— Dr M K Sharief/Dr M Rose/Professor S Wessely (Guy’s, King’s & St Thomas’s School of Medicine).

Paraoxonase work—B Mackness (Manchester Royal Infirmary).

Reproductive Health study—Dr Pat Doyle (London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine).

Systematic literature review of published research—Professor Glyn Lewis (Cardiff University).

Testing for squalene in vaccines—Independent UK Laboratory.

Vaccines Interactions Research Programme—Dstl Porton Down.

Rehabilitation—Dr John Bisson (Cardiff University).

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answers by Lord Bach on 19 March (WA 76–78) regarding the consideration of immigration appeals, what is the policy which permits the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to destroy files, and thereby make it unable to provide data on its decisions from 2005 and 2006; why the Administrative Court was able to provide statistics for the same period; and whether they have considered the figures for reconsideration in favour of the Secretary of State and orders in favour of appellants. [HL2602]

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) policy on record retention and destruction is agreed between the tribunal, the departmental records officer and a national archive. All tribunal policies accord with the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958, which does not require the AIT to retain any files which are not selected for permanent preservation on the basis of having exceptional legal or procedural importance. All files created pre-2006 that were not selected for permanent preservation will now have been destroyed, or be in the process of being destroyed, in accordance with the retention and destruction policies for that period. Immigration judge decision(s) on file are transferred to Ministry of Justice archives. The AIT policy on file destruction at present is to retain files not marked for permanent preservation for 18 months only.

The Administrative Court was able to provide statistics for the period 2005-06 regarding applications for reconsideration from its own electronic database. These statistics provide only for applications to the Administrative Court directly for reconsideration of an AIT decision under the opt-in provision established by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. The AIT's electronic database incurred a problem with approximately 2,000 cases in 2005-06 which resulted in the data for the outcomes of reconsideration applications not being recorded correctly. This was because the outcome of the reconsideration applications was overwritten erroneously with the outcome of the reconsideration hearing. The incorrect data inputs could not be identified or corrected following this and the monthly reports for that period did not break down the outcomes into appellant and respondent. It has therefore not been possible to provide the statistical data for outcome of reconsideration applications for 2005-06.

The Government keep the operation of their polices in relation to reconsideration under regular review.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the recent discussions between the Minister for Borders and Immigration, Phil Woolas, and the French Minister for Immigration, Éric Besson, a new facility for illegal immigrants is to be built at Calais; and, if so, what are the timescale and costs. [HL2492]

Phil Woolas met with Eric Besson, the French Minister for Immigration Integration, Nationality Identity and Solidarity-based Development, on 11 February 2009.

Both Ministers reiterated their opposition to any sort of new Sangatte reception centre which might act as a magnet for illegal immigrants, traffickers and smugglers. At the same time, both Ministers are concerned for the humanitarian situation faced by individuals in the Calais region and will provide support to those in genuine need.

Alongside this we are discussing a secure replacement facility in the UK control zone to hold illegal immigrants until they can be handed over to the French border police and processed under French law. The details, including financing, are still under discussion between officials.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the words “a county council, or district council, in England” in the draft Infrastructure Planning (National Policy Statement Consultation) Regulations 2009 that are set out in the Consultation on list of statutory consultees for National Policy Statements mean that county councils and district councils will be statutory consultees in two-tier areas. [HL2645]

We intend that county councils and district councils will both be statutory consultees in two-tier areas, given the different roles and responsibilities that both carry.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to add Leaders' Boards, Multi-Agency Agreements and Economic Prosperity Boards to the list of statutory consultees in the draft Infrastructure Planning (National Policy Statement Consultation) Regulations 2009. [HL2646]

Leaders’ boards and economic prosperity boards will not initially be added to the list of statutory consultees in the draft Infrastructure Planning (National Policy Statement Consultation) Regulations 2009 because the orders will be made ahead of the boards’ formal establishment. We will consider whether it is appropriate to add these bodies to the schedule when they are formally established.

Multi-area agreements will not be added to the list of statutory consultees as they are agreements between local authorities to deliver targets and are not bodies with statutory duties or legal status in their own right.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to stop paying the fees for United Kingdom membership of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage which were paid by the Department for International Development until 2003-04. [HL1081]

The UK Government are not reconsidering their decision to stop paying fees for UK membership of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how long they expect the process to take for holding an officer to account as proposed in Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill; and what actions they propose to take if any such timings are not kept to. [HL2355]

The period of time will depend upon the local authorities’ internal management processes and the frequency of their overview and scrutiny meetings.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, under Clause 16(10) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, “another officer of the authority” can include any officials from a department of state or other public and private body who are on secondment to the authority; [HL2356]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether under Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill a petition submitted to a local authority requiring an officer to be called to account can be accepted if the petition relates to an official who normally works for a department of state but is on secondment to the authority; if not, what guidance they plan to issue on how to respond to such a petition; and whether such guidance will include advice that the matter be referred to the relevant department of state from which the official is on secondment; and [HL2357]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they would take if a local council accepted a petition requiring an officer to be called to account, as proposed by Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, if that officer normally worked for a department of state but was on secondment to the authority. [HL2358]

Any officer of a local authority can be required by Section 21(13) of the Local Government Act 2000 to give evidence to an overview and scrutiny committee. Whether a person on secondment to a local authority is “an officer of the authority” will depend on the circumstances of the case. A local authority would be able to make provision in any secondment arrangements to require the secondee to give evidence to the authority’s overview and scrutiny committee if requested, even if the secondee were not “an officer of the authority”.

Authorities can accept any petition irrespective of whether the petition fulfils the statutory requirements.

Communities and Local Government is committed to working closely with the local government sector and other stakeholders to develop guidance to support principal local authorities to meet the petitions requirements set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill and in particular to identify the areas which the guidance should cover. The guidance will build on the views of respondents to the 2008 Local Petitions and Calls for Action Consultation and the Communities in Control: Real people, Real Power: Improving Local Accountability Consultation and a draft will be made available for consultation.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what legal advice they have received on any human rights, employment law or other legal implications of the proposed Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill; and whether they will place such advice in the Library of the House. [HL2361]

I have made a statement that in my view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights. I am also satisfied that Clause 16 has no adverse effect on any employment or other rights. Clause 16 imposes no new obligations on any officer of any local authority because every officer of every authority operating executive arrangements can already be required to attend before an overview and scrutiny committee and answer questions. The Government do not disclose their legal advice in these circumstances.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Carter of Barnes on 23 March (WA 98), whether the practice of filming media interviews while the interviewee is driving a vehicle on a public road is illegal; and, if it is not, whether they will take steps to make it an offence. [HL2473]

It is an offence for a person to drive or cause or permit any other person to drive, “if he is in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle or have a full view of the road and traffic ahead”, under Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

Should there be a crash or incident, depending upon the circumstances, there might be a prosecution on the more serious charges of driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving.

Advice for all road users on distractions is set down in Rules 148 to 150 of the Highway Code (available from www.direct.gov.uk). Specific advice for broadcasters has been provided in the booklet Presenting Road Safety—A Guide for the Media, published by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents with support from the department, which is available online at www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/roadmedia.pdf. Under the heading “Bad Practice” it includes, “drivers having long conversations with a passenger, or speaking to camera, without watching the road ahead”.

There is no evidence of road casualties resulting from drivers speaking to camera, or that the law we have is insufficient.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many copies of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice, issued by the Lord Chancellor in April 2007, have been printed; and how many copies of the code have been sold or otherwise distributed. [HL2379]

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was fully implemented on 1 October 2007. Section 42 of the Act requires the Lord Chancellor to prepare a code of practice to provide guidance and information to people about how the Act will actually work in practice. The code is a statutory document and a number of people who work with people who may lack capacity have an obligation to have regard to the contents. Since its publication in April 2007:

44,945 copies were printed;

41,699 copies have been sold at £15 each. This figure includes English, Welsh, audio, Braille and large print versions;

10,000 CD-ROMs which contain copies of the English and Welsh versions of the code have been distributed;

167,586 English versions and 1,566 Welsh versions have been accessed via the Office of the Public Guardian's (OPG) website;

a number of copies were distributed to stakeholders who had contributed to the code; and

recent visitors to the OPG from Japan and Singapore interested in the implementation of the MCA have also been provided with copies.

A supplement to the code relating to the deprivation of liberty safeguards was issued by the Lord Chancellor in August 2008. The supplement is available to buy in hard copy at a cost of £12.50 or is available to download from the Department of Health website.

Initially 20,000 copies of the supplement to the code were printed. These have now all been sold and a further print run is under way.

To ask Her Majesty's Government with reference to the National Park Authorities (Amendment) (England) Order 2009 (SI 2009/557), which gives the Secretary of State the power to select 16 members of the Northumberland National Park Authority where before he selected 10, how many other authorities, agencies or arms-length bodies will be similarly affected by legislation consequent on structural change. [HL2659]

I am unable to confirm the extent of future changes to the membership of bodies such as the national park authorities which may arise from the establishment of unitary authorities, as this will vary depending on the extent of the local government changes and the membership structure in the individual bodies.

The changes to the membership of Northumberland National Park Authority arose following the establishment of the new unitary authority, Northumberland Council, and the resulting abolition of the district councils in Northumberland. As the sole local authority for the area, Northumberland Council would have been responsible for appointing all local authority members to the national park authority.

Defra consulted on proposals which would reflect the new local government structure while retaining the same overall size of authority and maintaining a strong local presence on the authority. The proposals, which have now been implemented, have reduced the local authority seats from 12 to six, increased the number of parish members from four to six, and increased the number of Secretary of State members from six to 10. Two of the extra four Secretary of State seats are being taken by those who have experience of living or working in the national park: one extra with experience of living or working in the Newcastle/Gateshead area; and one with particular knowledge of regional issues.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will place in the Library of the House the further report commissioned by the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games for presentation to the Olympics Minister to assist in the Olympic shooting venue choice of (a) Bisley, (b) Barking, (c) Woolwich, and (d) any reserve site; and whether they will include an itemised breakdown of the costings and comparisons of each of those sites. [HL2417]

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) undertook detailed feasibility work on the location of the London 2012 shooting venue and presented its findings to the Olympic Board at its meeting on 19 March.

For continuing reasons of commercial sensitivity and so as not to prejudice the discussions and negotiations of the ODA and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games on contracts they have not awarded for temporary venues, I am unable to place a copy of the ODA’s detailed feasibility work in the Library of the House at this time.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games to reconsider its decision in favour of siting the shooting at Woolwich. [HL2443]

The Olympic Board confirmed on 19 March that the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich will host the shooting events in 2012 as it represents the most suitable and cost-effective venue. The board also agreed that further feasibility should be undertaken at Barking Reach, but only as a contingent fallback option. The Olympic Board’s decision on the shooting venue is final and on this basis I will not be asking the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games to reconsider its position or the board’s decision.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 15 December 2008 (WA 17), whether they will place in the Library of the House the final copy of the KPMG report on possible temporary venues for the 2012 Olympic Games, without deleted or blacked out paragraphs. [HL2416]

The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) published a redacted version of the KPMG findings on 19 December 2008, which is available in the House Library. For continuing reasons of commercial sensitivity and so as to not prejudice the discussions and negotiations of the ODA and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games on contracts they have not yet awarded for the temporary venues, I am unable to place a non-redacted version of the KPMG findings in the Library.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they have received from the Metropolitan Police on safety and security issues arising from the owners of car parks surrounding Wembley Stadium not opening their car parks earlier than three hours before the kick-off of major matches at the stadium; and what representations they have made to those owners on this matter. [HL2349]

We have not been advised of, or received any representations regarding, safety and security issues arising from the opening times of car parks in the vicinity of Wembley Stadium.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what procedures the Wales Office has for receiving, acknowledging, dealing with and responding to petitions that it receives from members of the public. [HL2037]

Petitions may be received by either the Cardiff or London offices of the Wales Office or sent there by post. They will be recorded by the department’s correspondence unit and assigned to the most appropriate officials and monitored to ensure that a detailed response is sent within 15 working days.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they will take if a local authority refuses to accept a petition asking them to call an officer to account at a public meeting of the authority, as proposed in Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. [HL2354]

If a local authority fails to comply with its legal obligations, petitioners could use the usual public law remedies, such as the authority’s complaints procedure, complaining to the local government ombudsman or bringing legal proceedings such as judicial review.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they would take if an elected local council refused to accept a petition requiring an officer to be called to account, as proposed under Clause 16 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, following an election in which the local council governing party stated as a manifesto commitment that they would not accept such a petition. [HL2360]

If a local authority fails to comply with its legal obligations, petitioners could use the usual public law remedies, such as the authority's complaints procedure, complaining to the local government ombudsman or bringing legal proceedings such as judicial review.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many national policy statements they plan to issue under the Planning Act 2008; on what subjects; and what are the timetables for consultation on and publication of them. [HL2644]

The Department for Communities and Local Government published a route map for implementation of the Infrastructure Planning Commission regime, including the current timetable for preparation of national policy statements, on its website on Tuesday 27 January. Copies are also in the House Library.

The Government are planning initially to produce 12 NPSs covering the following infrastructure sectors:

Overarching Energy (setting the context for the other five energy NPSs below)

Renewables

Fossil Fuel

Electricity Networks (i.e. power lines etc.)

Oil and Gas Infrastructure (e.g. pipelines and storage)

Nuclear Power

Ports

National Networks (i.e. strategic roads and railways, including strategic rail and freight interchanges)

Airports

Waste Water (e.g. sewage treatment infrastructure)

Water Supply (e.g. reservoirs)

Hazardous Waste (e.g. high temperature incineration)

Given the complexity of the implementation programme and the need for consultation on, and parliamentary scrutiny or approval for, many aspects of the regime, the timings given may well change. We will keep the route map under review and update it if there are significant changes.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when they last carried out a review of polygamy and income support. [HL2636]

The rules for paying benefits to people in polygamous marriages have been in place since 1988. The department conducted an internal review of the arrangements in November 2006. It concluded that current policy, while recognising certain polygamous marriages contracted abroad, ensures that there is no financial advantage to claiming for those in such marriages.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many foreign persons held in HM Prison Liverpool on the last available date have applied for the Facilitated Returns Scheme; and what is the average time spent in prison from date of application to return to the home country. [HL2465]

Information on the location of foreign national prisoners who have applied for the Facilitated Returns Scheme is not centrally collated and can only be obtained through the examination of individual casefiles at disproportionate cost.

The Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency has written regularly to the Home Affairs Select Committee in order to provide all of the most robust and accurate information on the removal and deportation of foreign national prisoners, including those removed under the Facilitated Returns Scheme. Copies of these letters are available in the Library of the House.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to install in-cell electricity in HM Prison Latchmere House. [HL2466]

The design for the in-cell electricity is being developed and work is programmed to commence on site in February 2010 and be completed around September 2010. Work to replace alarms will be included in the project.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which Members of the House of Lords are appointees to the non-departmental public bodies listed under “Department for International Development” in annex A to the report of the Cabinet Office entitled Public Bodies 2008; and what was their appointment and individual remuneration. [HL1808]

Information on board membership and remuneration is published in individual bodies’ annual reports and accounts.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the number of train journeys in 2008 that were terminated before reaching the originally-intended destination; and what number of those terminations were as a result of delays to the service. [HL2775]

During the period from 6 January 2008 to 3 January 2009, 2.2 per cent of timetabled trains were cancelled in part or in whole.

The Department for Transport does not hold information specifically about cancellations occurring as a result of en-route delays to the service.

Train performance data for the rail network are collected and held by Network Rail. The noble Lord may wish to contact Network Rail's chief executive at the following address for a response to his Question: lain Coucher, Chief Executive, Network Rail, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9AG.

To ask Her Majesty's Government in view of the number of commuters travelling into Nottingham, why the franchise for East Midland Trains specifies that three trains should arrive in Nottingham from Lincoln before 9.30am on weekday mornings. [HL2673]

The trains are timed to arrive in Nottingham before 9.30 so that people can reach their workplaces on time.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why four trains operate on the Matlock branch after 6.30pm but two operate on the service from Nottingham to Lincoln. [HL2674]

The number of services on each route complies with the franchise specification, which in this respect was unchanged from the previous franchise. Stagecoach, to which the franchise was awarded, included extra Nottingham to Matlock services in its bid on the basis of its assessment of market needs, and this offer was accepted and incorporated in the new franchise.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why they allow certain trains between Nottingham and Lincoln to take over an hour when the best achievable journey time is 45 minutes. [HL2675]

Certain trains call at intermediate stations, and this extends the overall journey time.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why they specify there should be two trains per hour between Exeter and Exmouth but one train per hour between Nottingham and Lincoln, bearing in mind their respective populations. [HL2676]

Population is not an explicit determinant of train frequency. There are places smaller than Exmouth which have a more frequent train service. The main determinant of train service frequency is demand, which is assessed when passenger rail franchises are specified, and kept under review by train operators.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the total cost in real terms to the United Kingdom of repairing and strengthening road bridges in compliance with European Union legislation. [HL2566]

The Highways Agency is responsible for motorways and trunk roads in England, including compliance of its network with European Union legislation. For older bridges, there has been a large programme of structural assessment followed by strengthening of bridges where necessary. Total costs are estimated to be about £777 million overall, including an allowance for future costs. Expenditure to the end of 2007 was about £651 million. These figures represent total actual costs; it has not been possible to determine the total costs in real terms.

Other roads in England are the responsibility of local highways authorities. Information on authorities' bridge strengthening expenditure is not collected centrally. The Department for Transport provides funding for highway maintenance to English local authorities, outside London, as part of the Local Transport Plan settlement capital allocations. Authorities may use this for bridge strengthening, and have also been able to apply for specific funding for maintenance of highway structures, including bridge strengthening, on the primary route network (PRN) to which the European legislation applies. The Department for Transport has provided £221.2 million for bridge strengthening and major maintenance on the primary route network for the period 2005-06 to 2010-11 (£225.72 million in 2008-09 prices). Prior to 2005-06 the information is not available to this level of detail.

Roads in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of their respective devolved Administrations. Funding in London is a matter for the mayor. The strengthening of bridges owned by other bodies, such as Network Rail, is a matter for the respective bridge owners.

To ask Her Majesty's Government when litter was last cleared from the verges of (a) the A34 west of Oxford, and (b) the A40 between Witney and Oxford. [HL2418]

There are two authorities responsible for the A34 verge clearance west of Oxford. The Vale of White Horse has an eight-week rolling programme which means that the road is continuously being cleared of litter. The other authority, Cherwell District Council, carried out its last quarterly cleanse over the weeks beginning 15 and 22 March 2009.

There are six authorities responsible for the length of the A40. The two authorities responsible for the section that lies west of Oxford are West Oxfordshire District Council and South Oxfordshire District Council.

West Oxfordshire District Council last cleared the verges of litter during the two weeks beginning 16 March and South Oxfordshire District Council carried out its most recent cleansing of its part of the A40 on 3, 11, 17 and 20 March 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Rural Payments Agency has set the standard reduction in 2009 for a first-time breach of cross-compliance standards at 3 per cent. [HL2293]

Following criticism for being too lenient on negligent non-compliance in recent European Commission audits, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has reviewed its approach. In order to comply with European legislation and avoid further financial penalties, from 2009 the RPA will be using a 3 per cent reduction as a starting point for first-time breaches of the cross-compliance requirements and standards. The European legislation allows the RPA to reduce this to 1 per cent or increase it to 5 per cent, depending on the extent, severity and permanence of the non-compliance. Guidance on how the RPA will apply this flexibility was published in January 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why they did not arrange to access the police data in Schengen Information System (SIS) soon after 2000; and what the impact is on United Kingdom security in general, and the 2012 Olympics in particular, in the light of doubts about whether SIS II will be functioning by then. [HL2472]

Following approval of the UK's application to join the police and judicial co-operation arrangements in Schengen, work began to deliver our connectivity to the Schengen Information System (SIS) in 2002. However, before this could become operational the European Commission proposed the development of an upgraded system (SIS II). The date by which the European Commission initially envisaged that SIS II would be operational was very close to the planned UK date for access to the original system. Furthermore, the original SIS does not include biometric information and is therefore a much weaker control tool than other capabilities that are already in place or being implemented by the UK and our European partners. Ministers therefore took the decision that the UK should refocus its resources on the development of connectivity to SIS II, which will ultimately provide the UK with better functionality than the original SIS.

The Government have now approved a 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy, which sets out how we will achieve our aim of a safe and secure Games in keeping with the Olympic culture and spirit. This strategy provides a framework for programmes run by the police and other agencies and by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG). The Government have also endorsed an outline 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Safety and Security National Concept of Operations, which describes how the strategy will be delivered. The Olympic security programme is intended to be flexible and make use of available technology and resources.

Changes to Schengen arrangements are not central to our security planning.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why it is necessary for International GCSEs to be accredited in order for them to be included in contextual value added calculations. [HL2439]

Qualifications are reported in the achievement and attainment tables if they have been approved by the Secretary of State for use in maintained schools. Before a qualification can be considered for approval, it must be accredited by the independent regulator Ofqual. Ofqual's accreditation process is necessary to ensure that qualifications from awarding bodies meet specific requirements and are aligned to the national curriculum programmes of study in England. International GCSEs have not been submitted for accreditation to Ofqual. It would be inconsistent to set up an independent regulator and then approve qualifications that are outside its remit. Until such a time as Ofqual has accredited those qualifications and they are approved for use in maintained schools, we would not be in a position to include them in the achievement and attainment tables, including the contextual value added calculations.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answer by Baroness Morgan of Drefelin on 23 March (Official Report, House of Lords, col. 441) that “IGCSEs have not been submitted for accreditation to Ofqual”, whether some international GCSEs have been accredited, but under a different name. [HL2510]

International GCSEs (iGCSE) have not been put forward for accreditation by either of the two awarding bodies which offer them, Edexcel and Cambridge International Examinations (CIE).

CIE put forward for accreditation a number of Cambridge International Certificates, which are similar to its iGCSEs. These have recently been accredited by Ofqual, the independent qualifications regulator, and have come to Ministers for approval for use in the maintained sector under Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. We expect to make a decision shortly.

To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (a) individuals, and (b) companies, charities or other organisations, are recorded on the Suspicious Activity Reports database of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. [HL2613]

The Serious Organised Crime Agency’s database, known as ELMER, on which suspicious activity reports are recorded does not have the capability to provide the information sought.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether all Suspicious Activity Reports submitted to the Serious Organised Crime Agency are recorded on the database of the Agency; and whether those reports which the agency considers unfounded are removed from the database. [HL2614]

All suspicious activity reports (SARs) are recorded on the database known as ELMER. The Serious Organised Crime Agency does not consider the basis on which individual SARs are reported, nor does it remove any SAR from the database on this basis.

To ask Her Majesty's Government why Nottingham County Council has access to the Suspicious Activity Reports database of the Serious Organised Crime Agency; and which other local authorities have access to the database. [HL2615]

There is an accredited financial investigator in Nottingham County Council who is able to access and use the Serious Organised Crime Agency’s database of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) from a terminal in a local police unit. The financial investigator uses SARs when investigating housing benefit fraud. No other local authority currently has access to the SARs database. Accredited financial investigators were established in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2005 (SI 2005/386) added local authority fraud investigators to the list of financial investigators who could use various powers in the Act.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what records are kept of those accessing the Suspicious Activity Reports database of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. [HL2616]

The database of suspicious activity reports, known as ELMER, allows the Serious Organised Crime Agency to extract information about access of the data by users of the system. SOCA undertakes analysis of this usage and retains the results of this for the period of time for which the information has operational value.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to allow liners into the River Mersey in 2009 and 2010. [HL2694]

The matter of which types of vessel may enter a port or harbour is not for Her Majesty's Government but for the designated harbour authority. In the case of the River Mersey this is the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. The Government encourage ports to compete for business including the cruise liner trades. The Port of Liverpool can accommodate cruise vessels and we understand that a number of visits are scheduled for 2009.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Carter of Barnes on 23 March (WA 105) concerning the depiction of smoking in television programmes, whether they propose to restrict further the depiction of smoking as a glamorous lifestyle choice. [HL2474]

The depiction of smoking is already subject to strict controls under current arrangements with the broadcasters and the organisations that regulate broadcasting.

It is a longstanding principle that Government do not interfere in programme matters, either on arrangements for scheduling or on content.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact on European Union aid for reconstruction in south Sudan of the Government of Sudan not signing the Cotonou agreement; and what contingency plans are being explored by the European Union. [HL2446]

The UK Government have been in close consultation with the European Union (EU) (both in Brussels and Sudan) and are concerned about the potential impact of the Government of Sudan's not signing the Cotonou agreement on Sudan's access to European Development Fund (EDF). The main impact would be the net loss to Sudan of approximately €300 million from the 10th EDF. Although we do not have clear figures, we know that southern Sudan would lose a substantial amount of development assistance, and this is an issue that the Government of Southern Sudan has raised with us. The withdrawal of these funds leaves potentially significant gaps in support to the World Bank managed Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the South, and other programmes which the EC has previously supported such as the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process, and recovery and rehabilitation needs throughout Sudan.

Contingency options are being explored at the moment by the European Commission. We believe that the principle that all countries receiving EDF support must be signatories of the Cotonou agreement is fundamental to the partnership between these countries and the European Union and should be upheld.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what funding they provide to telephone helplines for children and adults. [HL2461]

The department currently provides £14,246,621 in grant funding to telephone helplines for children and adults. The individual helplines and associated funding is outlined in the table below.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will commission a review of the processes for listing and de-listing terrorist groups and individuals and for imposing sanctions, nationally and by the European Union and United Nations. [HL2434]

The processes involved in the UK proscription of terrorist organisations are reviewed by Lord Carlile as part of his annual review into the operation of the Terrorism Act 2000. In his latest report, issued in June 2008, he described the proscription processes as “generally efficient and fair”. These processes are additionally kept under internal review to ensure they remain proportionate and effective.

The domestic processes for asset freezing found in the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2006 are kept under review by the Treasury to ensure that these remain proportionate and effective. Part 6 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 recently strengthened these processes by making provision for rules of court to govern challenges to asset-freezing decisions, including providing for special advocates and closed hearings where the underlying information cannot be disclosed to the designated party for reasons of national security.

The UK is committed to improving current listing and delisting procedures in the EU and the UN, as well as the provision of information to designees. The UK is currently exploring a range of proposals for reform of the UN regime in particular. We will explore these proposals with our international partners in the coming months.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which organisations have been proscribed under terrorism legislation in each of the last 10 years. [HL2576]

The Terrorism Act 2000 made provision, for the first time, for the proscription of organisations concerned in international and domestic terrorism (as well as terrorism connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland). Organisations listed in Schedule 2 to that Act are proscribed. On receiving Royal Assent on 20 July 2000, 14 organisations connected to the affairs of Northern Ireland were listed in Schedule 2; these organisations were until that point proscribed under previous legislation either with effect in Northern Ireland only, or, in respect of the Irish Republican Army and the Irish National Liberation Army, with effect in the whole of the UK. The organisations are:

The Irish Republican Army

Cumann na mBan

Fianna na hEireann

The Red Hand Commando

Saor Eire

The Ulster Freedom Fighters

The Ulster Volunteer Force

The Irish National Liberation Army

The Irish People’s Liberation Organisation

The Ulster Defence Association

The Loyalist Volunteer Force

The Continuity Army Council

The Orange Volunteers

The Red Hand Defenders

The Terrorism Act allows the Home Secretary to add, by order, an organisation to Schedule 2.

In 2001 the following organisations were added to Schedule 2:

Al-Qa’ida

Egyptian Islamic Jihad

Al-Gama’at al-Islamiya

Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armée) (GIA)

Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat) (GSPC)

Babbar Khalsa

International Sikh Youth Federation

Harakat Mujahideen

Jaish e Mohammed

Lashkar e Tayyaba

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)

Hizballah External Security Organisation

Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades

Palestinian Islamic Jihad—Shaqaqi

Abu Nidal Organisation

Islamic Army of Aden

Mujaheddin e Khalq

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan) (PKK)

Revolutionary Peoples’ Liberation Party—Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-Cephesi) (DHKP-C)

Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi to Askatasuna) (ETA)

17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17).

In 2002 the following organisations were added to Schedule 2:

Abu Sayyaf Group

Asbat Al-Ansar

Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

Jemaah Islamiyah.

No organisations were added to Schedule 2 in 2003 or 2004.

In 2005 the following organisations were added to Schedule 2:

Al Ittihad Al Islamia

Ansar Al Islam

Ansar Al Sunna

Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain

Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami

Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami (Bangladesh)

Harakat-ul-Mujahideen/Alami

Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin

Islamic Jihad Union

Jamaat ul-Furquan

Jundallah

Khuddam ul-Islam

Lashkar-e Jhangvi

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan.

In 2006 the following organisations were added to Schedule 2:

Al-Ghurabaa

The Saved Sect

Baluchistan Liberation Army

Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan.

In 2007 the following organisations were added to Schedule 2:

Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh

Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari’at Muhammadi.

In 2008 the following changes were made to Schedule 2:

Mujaheddin e Khalq was removed from Schedule 2, and

“The military wing of Hizballah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it (including the Hizballah External Security Organisation)” was substituted for the then existing entry of “Hizballah External Security Organisation”.

To ask Her Majesty's Government which of the Project ARGUS training exercises developed by the National Counter-Terrorism Security Office for night-time economy businesses, airport and railway terminals and the hotel sector will deal with a scenario involving armed and mobile terrorists employing “hit and run” or “seize and hold” tactics; and whether they will place a copy of those training exercises and materials in the Library of the House. [HL2581]

The police National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) has delivered Project ARGUS training exercises for the following sectors: high street/retail (including businesses at airports, seaports and railway terminals); the night-time economy; health; and for those involved in the built environment, specifically architects, planners and design professionals. Project Argus training materials are currently being updated to include advice for businesses on dealing with firearms attacks. More detailed advice will be incorporated in the Project Argus training materials being developed for the hotel and the education sectors. The recently published NaCTSO protective security guidance on major events (available on the NaCTSO website www.nactso.gov.uk) includes the advice for businesses on firearms attack given at Project Argus events. A copy of NaCTSO protective security publications will be placed in the Library of the House.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 12 March (WA 280), what legal entity, rather than the statutory powers, employs the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Manager of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the Service Director of PATROL (the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Joint Committee); and what legal entity, rather than the statutory powers, is responsible for their remuneration. [HL2367]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 12 March (WA 280), how the Parking Adjudicators of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are remunerated; and what is the legal entity, rather than the statutory powers, responsible for their remuneration [HL2368]

This information is not held by central Government.

To ask Her Majesty's Government on which bus and coach services in England those aged 60 or over with bus passes could travel free of charge on 31 March, but can no longer travel free of charge on and from 1 April. [HL2693]

The statutory bus concession enables those aged over 60 and eligible disabled people to travel free on off-peak local bus services throughout England. From 1 April minor changes are being made to the eligibility criteria for which services are included in the statutory bus concession. The changes are intended to clarify the existing eligibility criteria and will explicitly exclude certain types of service that are outside the spirit of the statutory national concession. This will reduce the potential for any confusion over whether a service is eligible and has been well received by operators and local authorities, which have been consulted throughout.

The following types of services will be explicitly excluded from the statutory concession from 1 April:

services on which the majority of seats can be reserved in advance of travel (such as coaches);

services that are intended to run for a period of less than six consecutive weeks;

services operated primarily for the purposes of tourism or because of the historical interest of the vehicle;

bus substitution (rail replacement) services; and

services where the fare charged by the operator has a special amenity element.

Local authorities will, however, remain able to offer concessionary travel on any service affected by the changes on a discretionary basis.

People aged over 60 and eligible disabled people are also able to take advantage of the half-price coach concessionary travel scheme, which was established in 2003.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the approach of the Rural Development Agencies towards funding rural transport initiatives which were transferred to them from the Countryside Agency. [HL2669]

Since April 2005 it has been for individual regional development agencies (RDAs) to determine the socio-economic priorities for the rural parts of their regions and demonstrate through their annual reports how they are achieving them. The Government have made no specific assessment of the regional development agencies' approach to funding the rural transport initiatives inherited from the Countryside Agency, although we are aware that a number of the initiatives have been continued either by the RDAs or by other bodies.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in drawing up schemes for developing innovative rural transport, they consider sustaining initiatives from previous allocations which may be short of funds. [HL2670]

A total of £110 million was awarded to local authorities that were successful in Rural Bus Challenge (RBC) competitions held from 1998 to 2003. This scheme has encouraged the development of innovative solutions to meeting rural transport needs. Many of the 300 projects initially supported by RBC funding are now continuing with mainstream funding from local authorities and other sources.

Kickstart funding for projects involving bus service improvements was first introduced by the Department for Transport on a pilot basis as part of the Urban and Rural Bus Challenge competitions in 2003. Kickstart is targeted at schemes that have the potential to become successful or which are currently marginal schemes that with some extra support could be made more successful. The Government are currently inviting local transport authorities to submit bids for funding for a new round of Kickstart projects. £25 million is available between 2009-10 to 2011-12. Kickstart support will not be used to fund projects which have previously received funding under previous challenge schemes, except in wholly exceptional circumstances. In addition it will not be available for schemes which failed to receive funding in earlier Kickstart rounds, unless they have been significantly revised.

The Government provide rural bus subsidy grant to help local authorities support rural bus services. This grant is now paid to authorities as part of their area-based funding and currently supports over 2,000 new and enhanced services on which over 33 million passenger journeys are made annually. This year's allocations total £58.5 million, rising to £60 million in 2010-11, bringing the grant's total to over £0.5 billion since its introduction in 1998. It is for local authorities to determine how they wish to use this funding, but it could be used to support schemes previously funded under earlier challenge schemes.