On 19 May 2009 (Official Report, col. WA 283), I responded to a Written Parliamentary Question from Lord Lofthouse (HL 3425) in which he asked the Government how many solicitors have yet to appear before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to answer allegations of professional misconduct in the handling of cases under the British Coal respiratory disease litigation and British Coal vibration white finger litigation.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) kindly supplied the necessary information, detailing 68 solicitors from 14 solicitors firms yet to appear before the SDT in relation to coal health compensation claims. This included Michael Foxford, John Didsbury, Conal Gallagher, Carlos Lopez, Jamie Patton, Paul Pickering, William Robbins, Moira Boyce, Judith Bell, Christine Harris, Susan Liver, Catherine MacCracken, Adele Gallagher, Gail Peterson and Rhonda Rosenfield of Birchall Blackburn LLP in Preston.

We have since been notified by the SRA that, unfortunately, the information supplied had not been updated to reflect the fact that the decision to refer a number of solicitors of Birchall Blackburn LLP had been rescinded in January 2009. As such, only Michael Foxford and Moira Boyce of Birchall Blackburn LLP face allegations relating to the handling of coal health claims.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is committed to providing British companies with information on a range of security related issues they might face when operating or investing overseas.

On 1 May the Government launched a new product, titled Overseas Security Information for Business (OSIB), which will provide this information free of charge through the website of UK Trade and Investment. The intention is to give useful support to British businesses in order that they can successfully meet the key security related challenges of doing business overseas and to improve their competitiveness.

The information provided will be both generic and country specific. While OSIB is an FCO/UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) initiative, a great deal of its added value is the result of bringing together systematically a range of sources of information from across government. The new product will cover issues such as political security risks, bribery and corruption, physical and personnel security, the terrorist threat and organised crime. It is presented in a co-ordinated and easily accessible way, including links to useful non-governmental websites.

OSIB will complement the information and advice already made available through the FCO travel advice to British nationals who travel or reside overseas. Also, it will draw on, and complement, information provided by our embassies and high commissions, which in many cases already have arrangements in place to exchange information on security issues with locally based British companies and to provide information on request to business visitors.

In setting up this new product the Government have worked closely with business in order that the product can best meet business needs and reflect business advice. UKTI intends to establish shortly a joint advisory group, to be chaired by a business representative, comprising a cross-section of business and officials from the government departments most closely involved in the initiative. We anticipate that the joint advisory group will meet three times per year. It will provide direction to OSIB and facilitate collaboration with key international business security associations.

OSIB supersedes the previous Security Information Service for Business Overseas (SISBO), a joint business/FCO venture which closed on 30 April. The FCO and UKTI have worked closely with the SISBO board to achieve a successful transition from SISBO to OSIB.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Ann Keen) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I regret that the information given in my Written Answer to the honourable Member for South Cambridgeshire (Andrew Lansley) on 11 May 2009 (Official Report, col. 627) was incorrect.

Details of consultant-led and midwife-led maternity units have been placed in the Library.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

On behalf of the Government I welcome the publication today of the final report from the Commission on Scottish Devolution.

The commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament and supported by the UK Government. The commission's remit was:

“to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom”.

The commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, has produced a detailed report, based on sound analysis, a robust evidence base and extensive engagement with people in Scotland. I welcome in particular the efforts the commission made to engage as widely as possible, through public events across the country, through oral and written evidence, a public questionnaire and through its website.

I welcome its conclusion that the devolution settlement in Scotland has been a remarkable and substantial success. We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament receiving full legislative competence, and there is broad support in Scotland and across the UK for the devolution settlement. The Scottish Parliament has established itself firmly in public life, bringing greater accountability to the people of Scotland, and innovation in both policy and working methods.

The Government agree with the commission's conclusion that, in order to serve the people of Scotland better, and to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom, the institutions of the United Kingdom and Scotland must be able to work together effectively. The Government have already taken steps to reinvigorate the Joint Ministerial Committee and to ensure close working with the Scottish Government, in particular in the face of the global economic downturn. We will consider the commission's recommendations in this area carefully.

Ten years on, the Scottish Parliament needs to have the financial responsibilities to match its ambitions for Scotland. We asked the commission to examine the options for improving financial accountability. The commission outlines a new financial model that would give significantly more responsibility to the Scottish Parliament for decisions on tax and spending in Scotland. The commission's model empowers and requires the Scottish Parliament to make a decision on the balance between taxes and public spending. Its recommendations draw from the work of Professor Anton Muscatelli's group of independent financial experts.

The Government agree that financial accountability could be achieved by moving to a system where a greater proportion of the Scottish Parliament's budget comes from its own decisions. We welcome the commission's model which provides a promising and well-evidenced basis on which we can work with the Scottish Parliament and others to bring forward practical proposals. The suggested changes are complex and require detailed and careful consideration. The Government will assess and explore how to implement these proposals. We agree with the commission's recommendation that any change should be introduced in a phased way to manage the risks of instability in public finances and of windfall gains or shocks and will take this into account in developing proposals.

The commission proposes further changes to the powers and functions of the Scottish Parliament, based on the work of a task group led by Sir David Edward. I am grateful for its careful consideration of this important area. Its work highlights the range and depth of responsibilities which the Scottish Parliament already has. It broadly endorses the existing settlement but recommends adjustments. The Government are willing to adjust the devolution settlement, where there is benefit to the people of Scotland and where it will strengthen Scotland's place within the Union.

A steering group comprising parties involved in the Calman commission process, chaired by myself, will help the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament plan how to take forward the Calman recommendations and deliver stronger devolution within a stronger United Kingdom.

The Government warmly welcome this report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office. I am grateful to Sir Kenneth and the members of his commission for their work. I look forward to working with colleagues, partners and stakeholders here and in Scotland to take forward the report.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Jonathan Shaw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council was held on 8 June 2009 in Luxembourg. I represented the United Kingdom.

The main agenda item at the council was the preparation of the social and employment aspects of the June European Council to be held on 18 and 19 June. There was also a ministerial exchange of views on the Lisbon agenda post-2010.

In introducing the main policy debate, the Czech presidency emphasised the contribution of the 7 May employment summit held in Prague and the Commission's 3 June jobs communication. Member states, including the UK, welcomed the Commission communication and its emphasis on skills and the reform agenda. A number of member states, including the UK, highlighted budgetary concerns about the European Social Fund proposals.

The council adopted without comment the council decision on the guidelines for employment policies of the member states and endorsed the Employment Committee opinion on skills and mobility. The council adopted conclusions on flexicurity in times of crisis, social services as a tool for active inclusion and on equality for women and men in active and dignified ageing. The council also adopted conclusions on the inclusion of the Roma. There was also a discussion of the Commission proposal to extend social security rights to third country nationals. The UK is not opted-in to this proposal. The presidency concluded that further preparatory work on the proposal was needed.

The council noted progress reports on revision of the directive on pregnant workers and on the directive on equal treatment of the self-employed. The council also noted a presidency progress report on the anti-discrimination directive. The incoming Swedish presidency underlined its hopes of continuing work and reaching political agreement in November.

Under any other business, the council took note of information from the Commission on the status of implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The council noted reports from the presidency of conferences it had hosted.

At the Ministers only lunch, there was a discussion on post-2010 successor to the Lisbon strategy. For the UK, I stressed the importance of the skills agenda and the importance of undertaking reforms to improve productivity and employment potential.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (David Kidney) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to outline the agenda items for the forthcoming Energy Council in Luxembourg on 12 June where Andy Lebrecht, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, will represent the UK.

The first item on the agenda will be a discussion of the Commission's proposal for a council directive imposing an obligation on member states to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products.

I also expect the Commission to give a progress report on its proposals for directives of the European Parliament and Council on the labelling of energy-related products, the energy performance of buildings, and the labelling of tyres. These were part of the second strategic European energy review which the Commission produced in November 2008.

Over lunch, I expect that representatives will discuss informally the location of the Association of Energy Regulators. The candidate cities are Ljubljana, Bratislava and Bucharest.

Finally, there will be short items of information on international relations in the field of energy.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Chris Bryant) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) will be held on 15 June in Luxembourg. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Europe will represent the UK.

The agenda items are as follows:

General Affairs

Preparation of the 18 and 19 June European Council

The GAERC will discuss the presidency’s agenda for the June European Council. The European Council will focus on EU institutional issues, including Ireland’s guarantees on the Lisbon treaty and Commission President Barroso's reappointment.

The council will also discuss the economic, financial and social situation, taking first decisions on financial regulation based on the Commission’s proposals on the de Larosière report as well as examining the progress of the G20 summit outcomes. There will also be a discussion of climate change funding mechanisms in order to help develop an EU position ahead of the Copenhagen climate change conference in December. Illegal migration in the Mediterranean is likely to be discussed, as is the Ukraine/Russia gas dispute.

Finally, on external issues, we expect coverage of the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, the Middle East and Burma.

The Government support these discussions at the June European Council. In particular, we welcome the continued co-ordinated EU response to the economic and financial situation.

Enlargement

The council is likely to take stock of the progress of accession negotiations with Croatia,  delayed due to Slovenia blocking the nine chapters ready for opening or closing.  The Government believe that bilateral disputes should not delay the accession negotiations. We continue to urge both countries to find a mutually acceptable solution to their territorial dispute and support the efforts of Commissioner Rehn to facilitate this.

External Relations

Middle East Peace Process (MEPP)

The GAERC is likely to reiterate EU support for a two-state solution in accordance with previous agreements between the parties; access to Gaza and a comprehensive, regional approach.  We also expect Ministers to express their support for the US commitment to the MEPP, and reaffirm the EU’s readiness to work in close co-operation with the US and other international partners towards achieving a lasting peace.  The EU-Israel Association Council will take place in the margins of the GAERC.

Cuba

Ministers may discuss Cuba on the occasion of the annual review of the EU's common position and the parallel review of the recently re-instated EU-Cuba political dialogue. The council is likely to adopt conclusions which: renew the EU's commitment to the common position and dual track engagement with government and civil society; confirm the continuation of the political dialogue; and express concern at the lack of concrete progress on our human rights concerns. The Government remain concerned about the human rights situation in Cuba, but continue to support a policy of engagement. Continuation of the political dialogue will allow more time for it to achieve results.

Burma

On Burma, we expect the council to discuss developments in the trial of Aung San Suu Kyi, and in particular the need for a robust EU response in the event of a guilty verdict. It is not yet clear whether a verdict will come before the GAERC. Were Aung San Suu Kyi to be subjected to a further period of house arrest, or worse, imprisoned, this would remove the last shred of credibility from elections planned for 2010. In such circumstances we would expect the council to issue strong conclusions outlining the steps the EU planned to take in response.

Western Balkans

On the western Balkans, Ministers will agree conclusions on visa liberalisation, regional co-operation, and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).  The UK is not a party to the Schengen agreement and so does not participate in decisions on visa liberalisation. On BiH, the EU will underline the importance of further reform, and reaffirm its commitment to the five objectives and two conditions that need to be completed before transition from the Office of the High Representative to a solely EU special representative-led mission can occur.   Ministers may also discuss co-operation by the countries in the region with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

AOB

Moldova

Ministers may discuss the EU's relationship with Moldova and the current political uncertainty following the failure to elect a new president and the requirement for new parliamentary elections. They will emphasise the importance of holding free and fair elections. 

Illegal Migration

There will be a short discussion of illegal migration in the Mediterranean region, at the request of Greece. We expect Ministers to focus on increasing and strengthening co-operation in Europe to tackle the increasing flows of illegal migration. The UK supports this and recognises the particular challenges that are faced by Greece and other Mediterranean countries. We are also keen to further the UK’s bilateral relationship with Greece on migration through the provision of technical advice and assistance.

Georgia

Ministers' discussions are likely to focus on the continued role of the EU monitoring mission (EUMM), whose mandate is due for renewal in September. Ministers are also likely to take into account the outcome of discussions in New York on the renewal of the UN mission's mandate and the possibilities for increased co-operation between international missions on the ground.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Budget 2009 announced an additional investment of £655 million over the next two years to ensure that every young person aged 16 and 17 who wants to study or take up a training place will have their place guaranteed by the Government under the September guarantee. £251 million of this investment is being used to fund 54,500 places and additional support for young people from this September, bringing our total investment in the education and training of young people to £6.8 billion in 2009-10.

In March, schools, colleges and other training providers told us that the allocations they had received would not meet the increase in local demand they were already experiencing or were expecting from September 2009. Budget 2009 now allows us to provide funding for the additional 32,000 learner places schools and colleges notified us of earlier in the spring, and to make provision for a further 22,500 learners who we expect will want a place in learning later this year. This is necessary for us to meet the September guarantee.

I am today announcing the regional breakdown of the £77 million investment which is funding the further 22,500 places. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has recently notified schools, colleges and training providers of these allocations, which are focused on supporting young people who would otherwise be at risk of becoming NEET (not in employment, education or training).

Our investment means we have increased the number of places available this September and next by 54,500 to an all time high of more than 1.55 million. Together with the 17,500 apprenticeships places for young people announced by the Prime Minister, that is 72,000 young people more than were first set out in the LSC’s annual statement of priorities in November 2008. This funding means that we can make sure that young people who are especially vulnerable have a suitable offer of a place by expanding the entry to employment programme by 13,000 places in 2009-10.

This is a huge investment in the skills of our young people to ensure that they can gain the skills and confidence to put them on the path to economic prosperity and to prepare the country so it is well placed for economic recovery with young people having the skills base it needs. We must make sure that every young person knows the wide range of education and training options open to them under the September guarantee. We expect the Connexions Service, schools, colleges and other providers to work with the local authorities to deliver the guarantee.

We know that the recession will continue to have an impact on the choices being made by young people over the summer and may increase demand further for learning and training places. I have therefore asked the Association of School and College Leadership, the Association of Colleges and the LSC to monitor the situation and to report to me after the bulk of the recruitment for the 2009-10 academic year has taken place this September. This will also inform our plans for the 2010-11 academic year and will be crucial as we make the transition from the LSC to local authority led commissioning. I will then make a further assessment of the situation, with my Cabinet colleagues, to ensure that all young people who want one can have a suitable place at school, college or training provider.

Regional analysis of 16-18 allocation to schools, colleges and other providers—excluding apprenticeships and entry to employment provision, 2009-10

Notes to table:

1. The matching to local authority and hence to region is done on best fit and derived from post code of the head office of the providers to whom the allocation is made. It is possible for these providers to operate across more than one authority area, although there is no double counting of the funding allocations.

2. The figures by region do not include allocations for entry to employment provision or apprenticeships.

3. The figures by region do not include any allocations for academies, SEN, or teacher pay grant.

4. The total figures shown for SEN and teachers pay grant are for the 2009-10 financial year as this is how this funding is allocated. As such they are not directly comparable to the other funding figures which are all 2009-10 academic year based.

I am pleased to announce that the Government have today written to the Low Pay Commission setting out the remit for its 2010 report.

The commission is asked to:

Monitor, evaluate and review the national minimum wage (NMW) and its impact, with particular reference to the effect on pay, employment and competitiveness in the low paying sectors and small firms; the effect on different groups of workers, including different age groups, ethnic minorities, women and people with disabilities and migrant workers and the effect on pay structures.

Review the levels of each of the different minimum wage rates and make recommendations for October 2010. The commission is also asked to make provisional rate recommendations as appropriate for October 2011.

Consider the detailed arrangements for an apprentice minimum wage under the NMW framework (as set out in the NMW Act 1998), and to recommend the rate and arrangements that should replace the existing exemptions, together with the timing for its introduction.

The commission is asked to do this with reference to:

the issues and groups to which they have particular regard when reviewing the established rates, as laid out above;

the need to ensure that sufficient volume, quality and sectoral variety of apprentice places are available to meet government targets, in particular when the education participation age is raised in England in 2013 and 2015; and

the effective functioning of the education market and young people’s choices with reference to the level of financial payment available on other education and training routes.

Report to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills by the end of February 2010.

The new terms of reference for the Low Pay Commission follow the Government's acceptance of the commission's recommendations in its 2009 report on introducing a minimum wage for apprentices.

Copies of the remit have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Jack Straw) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I have today published, and laid before Parliament, the Ministry of Justice annual report for 2008-09 (Cm 7600).

The report sets out the good progress we have made this year in meeting our mission of creating a just, safe and democratic society. It provides the first full year reporting of progress against our 2007 public service agreement (deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive criminal justice system for victims and the public) and our departmental strategic objectives, and reports against targets set in the 2004 Spending Review that are still current. The report also includes our progress on implementing outstanding Public Accounts Committee recommendations.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Shaun Woodward) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

I have received the annual report for 2008-09 of the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland which is being laid before Parliament today as a Command Paper.

Copies of the report are available from the Library of the House.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration (Phil Woolas) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I have made an authorisation under Section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, to enable the Secretary of State to request that asylum applicants claiming to be nationals of Palestine or Kuwait submit to language analysis.

Language analysis carried out for some Somali asylum applicants demonstrates that significant proportions of those tested have claimed to be of a nationality, or from a region or grouping, that is not their own in order to try to gain residence in this country. We are aware that a significant proportion of Palestinian and Kuwaiti claims also are from other nationalities. This new authorisation will assist the Secretary of State to make decisions in individual Palestinian and Kuwaiti cases, and to ascertain the extent of abuse within these nationalities.

The Secretary of State may take a refusal to submit to testing into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.

The authorisation will remain in place for 11 months (until April 2010), at which point we will review whether it is still necessary and appropriate.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Helen Goodman) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2009 have today been laid before Parliament. The regulations implement, from 13 July 2009, the recommendation set out in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s report—osteoarthritis of the knee in coal miners. The Command Paper Cm 7440 was published in August 2008.

The recommendation made in the report was to add the disease osteoarthritis of the knee to the schedule of prescribed diseases. These regulations implement that recommendation.

This means that all coal miners who worked underground in coal mines for an aggregate of 10 years or more before 1986 can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit if they suffer from osteoarthritis of the knee. Work from 1986 onwards as a coal face worker at a non-mechanised coal face, and for certain other categories of work, can be included in the 10 years qualifying period.

My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Policing, Crime and Security (David Hanson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of control order powers during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.

As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that each individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold control order review groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad-hoc basis as specific issues arose.

During the period 11 March 2009 to 10 June 2009, five non-derogating control orders were made and served. Six control orders have been renewed in accordance with Section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. One control order against an individual was revoked prior to being quashed by the court. One further control order has been revoked on direction from the court. Two non-derogating control orders made but not served in the previous quarter have also been revoked and one control order made but not served in a previous quarter has expired.

In total, 20 control orders are currently in force, 10 of which are in respect of British citizens. Six individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas. All of these control orders are non-derogating. No prosecutions for breaching a control order were completed during this reporting period.

During this reporting period, 108 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-four requests to modify control order obligations were refused. A right of appeal is provided for by Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Six appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons in relation to the renewal of control orders during this reporting period. Three appeals have been lodged against decisions by the Secretary of State to modify obligations imposed by non-derogating control orders without consent. A right of appeal is also provided for by Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. Two appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons relating to refusal to modify a control order.

Two judgments have been handed down by the High Court in control order cases during this reporting period in relation to substantive reviews of the individual control orders under Section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AT and AW a judgment was handed down on 20 March 2009. The court ruled that the control order imposed on AT remains necessary and proportionate but quashed one obligation and directed the Secretary of State to amend another. In the case of AW, the court quashed the control order on the grounds that the decision to make the control order was made on a materially erroneous basis. A judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AV on 30 April 2009. The court directed the Secretary of State to revoke the order on the basis that recent events pertinent to the case meant the order was no longer necessary, although the High Court was satisfied that that the decisions to make the original control order and the renewed control order were necessary and not flawed.

One judgment was handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to a modification appeal under Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM, judgment was handed down on 23 March 2009. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld all obligations as necessary and proportionate.

One judgment was handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to an application for interim relief pursuant to an application for judicial review, the purpose of which was to prevent the Secretary of State from acting on a modification to a control order. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v BM, the judgment handed down on 22 May 2009 refused injunctive relief and gave directions for the Section 10(1) appeal against the modification.

Two controlled persons have applied for, and been granted permission, to appeal to the Court of Appeal against High Court judgments in this reporting period. The Secretary of State has also applied for, and been granted permission, to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to two control order cases.

As reported in the last Written Ministerial Statement, the House of Lords heard the appeals in the cases of AE, AF and AN between 3 and 9 March 2009. The judgments, handed down on 10 June 2009, held that for control order proceedings to be compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR, a controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to allow him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations. Provided that this requirement is satisfied there can be a fair trial notwithstanding that the controlled person is not provided with the detail or the sources of the evidence forming the basis of the allegations. Where, however, the open material consists purely of general assertions and the case against the individual is based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials, the requirements of a fair trial will not be satisfied, however cogent the case based on the closed materials may be. All three appeals were allowed and the cases will now be remitted to the High Court for this disclosure test to be applied.

Full judgments are available at www.bailii.org/.