I regret that the Written Answers given to Lord Alton of Liverpool on 22 July 2008 (Official Report, col. WA 227) and to Baroness Masham of Ilton on 25 March 2009 (Official Report, col. WA 131, were incorrect with respect to the costs to the National Health Service (NHS) of abortions performed in NHS hospitals in England between 2004-05 and 2006-07. The correct information is set out in the table below:

Source: Schedule 4 (NHS trusts and primary care trusts combined) of the national schedule of reference costs

Notes:

1. Figures taken from schedule 4 (NHS Trusts and PCTs combined) of the national schedules of reference costs for the financial years 2004-05 to 2006-07.

2. Figures do not include abortions performed by private sector organisations under contract to the NHS.

3. Total costs are the number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) multiplied by the national average unit cost and the number of excess bed days multiplied by the national average unit cost.

4. National average unit costs are calculated on a weighted basis.

5. Figures include day cases, electives and non-electives (including excess bed days), outpatient procedures and regular day and night admissions.

6. 2004-04 and 2005-06 costs were collected on Healthcare Resource Group version 3.5 (HRG3.5) and include:

(a) M09—Threatened or spontaneous abortion

(b) M10—Surgical termination of pregnancy

(c) M11—Medical termination of pregnancy

7. 2006-07 costs were collected on HRG4 and include:

(a) MA15A—Vacuum aspiration with rigid cannula for 9 weeks gestation or more

(b) MA15B—Vacuum aspiration with rigid cannula for less than 9 weeks gestation

(c) MA16Z—Vacuum aspiration with flexible cannula

(d) MA17A—Dilation and evacuation 20 weeks or more

(e) MA17B—Dilation and evacuation less than 20 weeks

(f) MA18Z—Medical termination of pregnancy

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (the right honourable Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Prime Minister has been pleased to appoint Professor Alasdair Smith as the next chair of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, for a three-year term of office commencing on 1 March 2010.  This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, (Mr Quentin Davies), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am delighted to announce that the contracts for the third tranche of Typhoon multi-role combat aircraft have now been signed by the general manager of the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA), on behalf of the four partner nations, and by the chief executives of the programme’s co-ordinating industrial consortia, Eurofighter GmbH and Eurojet Turbo GmbH. This is excellent news for defence and for United Kingdom industry and represents the achievement of another major milestone for the Typhoon programme.

This order builds upon the success of the in-service Tranche 1 fleet and the ongoing introduction into service of Tranche 2 Typhoon aircraft, which are demonstrating outstanding performance in operation with the RAF. The Tranche 3 contracts will provide an additional 16 aircraft as part of a UK order for 40 aircraft, 24 of which are replacements for aircraft being diverted to satisfy exports to Saudi Arabia. The contracts form part of what is thought to be the largest defence order ever placed in Europe, reflecting the successful and continuing co-operation between the four partner nations and European industry. The contracts have also enabled partner nations to programme significant through-life support savings. For the UK this is of the order of £900 million.

Typhoon is an outstandingly capable, state-of-the-art aircraft which is providing a significant enhancement to our defence capability. The aircraft has the flexibility to contribute across a wide range of operations delivering air superiority and precision ground attack capabilities. Additionally, the aircraft will be built with sufficient capability to allow the embodiment of upgrades to systems now and in the future. The Tranche 3 aircraft will be an essential part of our defence capability to be retained until at least the 2030s as they will be delivered with sufficient incremental development capacity to be able to exploit nascent systems and weapons technology to ensure that we can continue to meet emerging defence challenges.

The order will provide major benefits for industry across the United Kingdom and is expected to sustain upwards of 15,000 direct jobs with defence manufacturers, many in high-technology positions, and a significant number in supporting industries across the economy more widely.

Typhoon is a world-class combat aircraft and this investment will provide our defence force with the capability to respond to the challenges and threats we face now and in the future.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Quentin Davies), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Further to the announcement on 19 July 2005 (Official Report, vol. 436; col. 59 WS), regarding the continuing programme of investment at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), I should like to provide an update to the House.  This is the first opportunity I have had to announce that, on 30 July 2009, agreement was reached between the department and AWE Management Limited (AWEML) to extend the priced period of work, within the existing overarching 25-year contract, with AWEML to 31 March 2013. 

This work, providing important investment in skills and facilities at AWE, is valued at an average of around £1 billion per annum and represents the next period of priced work within the Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme.  It is fully in accordance with the December 2006 White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994).

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

On Thursday 4 September, I laid before Parliament the Commonhold (Amendment) Regulations 2009. The regulations make consequential amendments to the Commonhold Regulations 2004, arising from the final implementation of the Companies Act 2006 on 1 October 2009. The principal changes are the removal of the prescribed form of memorandum of association for commonhold associations from the Commonhold Regulations 2004 and the insertion of a revised form of articles of association.

The existing non-statutory guidance on the Commonhold Regulations 2004 will be updated to take account of the changes and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

This Statement, which I am making also on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Yvette Cooper), sets out the plans of our two departments to work together to recover more of the debt which is owed to the taxpayer.

For some three years our two departments have been taking forward a programme of joint working, covering a range of areas where, together, we can deliver better service to our customers and better value to the taxpayer than we could if we worked separately. One such area relates to the debts which are owed to both HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)—often by the same individuals. Accordingly, we have been examining:

ways in which we can recover debts more cost effectively (for customers and departments) from customers who owe money to both our departments;

joint tracing services to locate customers with debts owing to one or both departments for whom we have no current address; and

a simpler payment method for customers owing a debt to HMRC and who are in receipt of benefit payments from DWP.

As part of this programme of work, from the spring of 2010 HMRC will start to trial the recovery of working tax credit and self-assessment debts through deductions from DWP benefit payments. Participation in the trial will be voluntary. The new service will be offered to people who cannot afford to settle their debts with HMRC in one go and who would prefer to pay them off through a voluntary deduction from their benefits.

To do this, DWP intends to make a regulation under the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 to enable DWP to collect HMRC debts. This regulation will be subject to scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and both departments will consult with customer representatives when designing the trial.

The trial will enable our two departments to assess the effectiveness of collecting HMRC debts via deductions from DWP benefit payments as well as to test our customers’ response to this method of payment. The trial will involve customers who are in receipt of benefit and whose tax credit overpayment or self-assessment debt is less than £1,000. It will offer customers whose tax credit award has ended or who have a self-assessment debt the option of paying back the debt via deductions from benefit payments as an alternative to current HMRC payment methods.

Both departments will evaluate the results of the trial before deciding whether to make this a permanent payment option.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Alistair Darling) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The Informal focused primarily on preparing a European position ahead of the meeting of G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors held on 4 and 5 September in London, including on IMF issues, executive remuneration and climate change financing. Ministers agreed to increase European resources available to the IMF, building on commitments made in the European Council conclusions in June. They also agreed that the G20 should move forward on reforms of financial regulation, stabilising the world economy, preparing for future growth and establishing sound compensation practices in the financial sector, building on the commitments made at the London summit.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury represented the UK.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Alistair Darling) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The G20 Finance Ministers and central bank governors’ meeting was held in London on 4 and 5 September. Discussions at the meeting focused on the global economy, financial regulation and international financial institutional reform. Copies of the communiqué and supporting annexes have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Yvette Cooper) has made the following Statement.

On 16 August I announced the publication of Lord Gill’s report into the causes of the tragic factory explosion at ICL Plastics Ltd in Glasgow on 11 May 2004. At the same time I asked the chair of the HSE and its board to consider the report’s findings and to report back to me on progress by the end of September, addressing both Lord Gill’s criticisms of its actions since the explosion and how the report’s recommendations could be taken forward. I said that I would report back to Parliament on progress in the autumn.

The HSE has now responded to me. I have placed a copy of its response in the Libraries of both Houses and it is also available on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/lpg.htm.

In the response the HSE chair acknowledges that, while primary responsibility for the tragic accident rested with the site user, there were failings within the HSE which need to be addressed. The chair also reiterates the apologies that both she and the chief executive of HSE made for these failings both during and after Lord Gill’s inquiry, and explains the steps that have already been taken since the accident.

HSE has worked closely with members of UKLPG, the trade association of the liquefied petroleum gas industry, to develop plans for the replacement of buried metal pipework with polyethylene pipes, which do not carry the risk of corrosion. It has been agreed that the replacement programme will include domestic sites, which goes beyond Lord Gill’s recommendations. The programme, which is scheduled to be completed by 2015, will be prioritised using an established risk model to ensure that sites identified as high risk are dealt with first. In parallel with this, HSE is also preparing an inspection campaign with local authorities focusing on sites identified as high risk, and is working with the industry to review and update user guidance materials and codes of practice for suppliers and installers.

The HSE also launched a two-stage consultation to address those recommendations of the Gill report where action is not already under way. The initial stage of the consultation seeks views from interested stakeholders in the LPG industry, the wider business community and those with an interest in health and safety, and will run until 19 November. I hope honourable Members will take the opportunity to feed their views into this.

Following completion of this initial stage, the Government will in the new year publish the full response to Lord Gill’s report. This will include firm proposals for action which will form the basis of the second stage of the consultation, supported by a formal impact assessment.

My honourable friend the Minister of State for Food, Farming and the Environment (Mr Jim Fitzpatrick) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, currently before Parliament, seeks to establish a new executive non-departmental public body called the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The MMO will subsume Defra’s Marine and Fisheries Agency, take on further functions from the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport and deliver a range of new functions, as set out in the Bill.

In order to become a legal entity, the MMO must have a chair and a board of at least five and no more than eight ordinary members. However, if recruitment of the board is delayed until after Royal Assent, it is highly likely that vesting of the MMO would have to be delayed. We have therefore sought HM Treasury approval for a contingencies fund advance to begin the recruitment of the board of the MMO prior to Royal Assent. Should Royal Assent not be granted, the recruitment process will be terminated.

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £50,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Defra. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £50,000, is being met by a repayable cash advance from the contingencies fund.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is announcing that on Friday 11 September it will be publishing the report produced by independent inspectors appointed by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after MG Rover Group went into administration on 8 April 2005 owing creditors nearly £1.3 billion.

The inspectors were appointed under Section 432 of the Companies Act and had wide powers to require documents and the attendance of witnesses, including directors, officers and agents of the company. They investigated the affairs of MGRG, its parent company Phoenix Venture Holdings and MGR Capital Limited and 32 related companies between the purchase of MGRG from BMW in May 2000 and the date of it entering administration.

Copies are being sent to members of the BIS Select Committee and to the Library of the House. The report will also be available on the BIS website.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Alan Campbell) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to announce the publication of the second annual report of the National DNA Database Ethics Group on 9 September 2009. The group was established on 25 July 2007 to provide Ministers with independent ethical advice on the operation and practice of the National DNA Database (NDNAD).

The annual report makes a number of recommendations around the processes involved in taking DNA samples from children and young people, the retention of samples and public information about the use of DNA. I have asked the National Policing Improvement Agency and the National DNA Strategy Board to let me have their considered comments on the report's recommendations as soon as possible.

The report can be viewed on the website of the independent Forensic Science Regulator and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Alan Campbell) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Christopher Hughes OBE as chair of the National DNA Database Ethics Group. Mr Hughes replaces Professor Peter Hutton, who resigned in March 2009. The ethics group provides Ministers with independent ethical advice on the operation and practice of the National DNA Database (NDNAD).

I am pleased to announce today that further significant progress has been made during the summer parliamentary recess towards the establishment of the UK Supreme Court.

The newly renovated Middlesex Guildhall building was formally handed over, from the Ministry of Justice, to Jenny Rowe, Chief Executive of the Supreme Court, on 1 August 2009.

The Fees Order specifying the fees payable to the court was laid in Parliament on 4 August 2009 following a full public consultation. The civil fees payable in the Appellate Committee were last amended in 2000. The vast majority of respondents to consultation agreed that it was equitable to uprate the fees payable in the UK Supreme Court to take account of inflation over that time. In addition, the fees order introduces a robust system of fee concessions to ensure that access to justice is ensured.

While respondents to consultation agreed that the fees for devolution cases should be brought into line with civil fees generally, they were concerned that to make this change in one step represented too steep an increase—we have therefore decided to implement this change in stages.

A review of the fees will be undertaken in approximately three years to take account of the actual running costs of the Supreme Court.

My Right Honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

I can announce that Command Paper Cm 7702, which sets out the Government's response to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan will be published on 2 October 2009.

The Government welcome the Committee’s report. Afghanistan and Pakistan remain the Government’s top foreign policy priorities. These issues deserve the widest possible engagement and the Committee’s report adds much to the debate. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office looks forward to further discussions with Parliament and all interested parties.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

Since deploying in April this year, 19 (Light) Brigade have been engaged in a number of high-intensity operations and this has resulted in a significant number of casualties, both due to enemy action and the harsh terrain in which they operate. As a result, Commanders on the ground have requested battle casualty replacements to enable them to sustain the required operational effectiveness for the remainder of their tour, and in particular throughout the election period.

Further to our announcements to Parliament on 16 December 2008 (Official Report, col. 105WS) and 29 April 2009 (Official Report, col. 46WS), around 150 personnel have deployed to Afghanistan as battle casualty replacements since 27 July 2009, the majority of whom were from 3rd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (Duke of Wellington’s).

The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and Minister for Defence Equipment and Support (Mr Quentin Davies) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The in-service support we provide to the ships and submarines of the Royal Navy is vital in ensuring that the Fleet remains one of the world’s most powerful maritime forces, able to operate with sovereign independence and protect the UK’s interests around the world.

This is the first opportunity I have had to announce that on 10 September 2009 we awarded a contract, worth £309 million, to BVT Surface Fleet Limited to provide in-service support for the Royal Navy’s new Type 45 Destroyers. The class of six Type 45s is one of a number of new capabilities being developed for the Royal Navy and will provide the UK’s future anti-air warfare capability, as well as being capable of contributing to a wide range of other military tasks.

The contract will provide support for a period of up to seven years commencing from 1 January 2010, in preparation of HMS Daring’s planned in-service date in February 2010.

This support contract uses an availability-based contracting approach where industry are contracted to manage equipment availability to agreed targets, incentivising them to minimise the cost of support by improving equipment reliability. Type 45 is the first major warship to adopt this approach.

Separate negotiations are under way to provide an in-service support solution for the Sea Viper missile system fitted to Type 45. These are expected to conclude early in 2010.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Alan Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

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

The control order regime

I would first like to report to Parliament on the future direction of the control order regime in the light of the House of Lords judgment in the case of AF & Others. That judgment ruled that individuals subject to control orders must be given sufficient disclosure about the case against them to enable them to give effective instructions to their legal representatives.

As the Government have made clear on numerous occasions, when dealing with suspected terrorists prosecution is—and will continue to be—our preferred approach. Where we cannot prosecute, and the individual concerned is a foreign national, we look to detain and then deport them. For those we cannot either prosecute or deport, our assessment has been that control orders are the best available disruptive tool for managing the risk they pose.

We have reviewed that assessment in the light of the House of Lords’ judgment in AF & Others. This has included a review of the impact of the judgment on the very small number of current control order cases. This has been in addition to the regular reviews that take place of the ongoing necessity and proportionality of each control order.

So far only one control order has been revoked and not replaced by a new one as a result of the judgment. That is the order against AF.

As I have made clear where the disclosure required by the court cannot be made for the protection of the public interest, including our national security, we may be forced to revoke control orders even where we consider those orders to be necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. In such circumstances we will take all steps necessary to protect the public. The police and security service seek to investigate and monitor the activities of those believed to pose a threat to national security.

In some cases, as in that of AF, I will face difficult choices as to how best to protect the public interest. I have to balance the importance of protecting the public from the risk of terrorism posed by the individual against the risk of disclosing sensitive material. Disclosing this material would reduce the Government’s ability to protect the public from a risk of terrorism and in some cases could put lives at risk. In the case of AF, I decided that the risks posed by disclosure were too great. However these decisions can only be made on a case by case basis.

In the case of AM, for example, I decided that the further disclosure that was ordered by the court could be made.

My current assessment is therefore that the control order regime remains viable following the House of Lords judgment and that the national security reasons for maintaining the regime have not changed. However as further control order cases are considered by the courts during the autumn I will be keeping this assessment under review.

In addition to this ongoing review within my Department, I have asked the independent reviewer of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, to review the impact of the House of Lords judgment and to advise me as to whether the assessment that the regime remains viable is right. I have asked him to advise on this question in his next annual report which will be published early next year. His report will very helpfully be informed by the High Court’s consideration of further control order cases over the coming months.

The operation of the control order powers in the last quarter

I would also like to report to Parliament on the operation of the control order powers over the last quarter. As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, the level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice. Control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that 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, four 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 June 2009 to 10 September 2009, five control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. Five control orders have been revoked. Only one of these five revocations, the case of AF, was as a direct result of the House of Lords judgment in AF & Others. In this case, I considered that the disclosure required by the court could not be made for the protection of the public interest. I therefore had no alternative but to take the difficult decision to revoke the control order, even though the assessment remained that the control order was necessary to protect the public. I have made clear that we take all steps necessary to protect the public.

In three of the other four cases I revoked the orders because I considered that they were no longer necessary because the orders had successfully disrupted the individual’s terrorism-related activities. In the remaining case the order was revoked because the individual is now subject to deportation proceedings.

One further control order against an individual was revoked following a court order. However in this case a new order was made and served in its place.

In total, 15 control orders are currently in force, nine of which are in respect of British citizens. Seven 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, 125 modifications of control order obligations were made, 49 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. One such appeal has been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period. 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 during this reporting period.

Two judgments were handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to the full judicial review of a control order under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. An interlocutory judgment was handed down in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AM in closed only on 9 July 2009. The Secretary of State was ordered to make further disclosure in order to ensure compliance with article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) despite the court’s acknowledgment that the disclosure ordered is contrary to the public interest. The Secretary of State decided to make the disclosure ordered in order to maintain the control order in force. A substantive judgment in the case is expected in the next reporting period.

In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AN, the court ordered the Secretary of State to revoke the control order in a judgment handed down on 31 July 2009. This followed the decision of the Secretary of State to withdraw reliance on a part of the case against AN due to the damage that would be done to the public interest if such disclosure was made. (The court ordered disclosure of this part of the case in a closed judgment of 29 February 2008 but the effect of the court order was stayed until the hand down of the June 2009 House of Lords judgment.) The Secretary of State argued that the control order against AN could be maintained on the basis of the remainder of the case. However, the judge considered that the material withdrawn represented the essence of the case as it was put to the Secretary of State when the control order was originally made and that as the decision to make an order had been based on grounds the core of which could not now be relied upon, the decision must be flawed. However, the court found that the order was properly made and renewed and therefore the appropriate remedy was to order the Secretary of State to revoke the order rather than to quash it. The court indicated that the Secretary of State was free to decide whether or not to apply for permission to make a new control order on the basis of the remaining material. The Government have subsequently made such an order with the court’s permission. AN has lodged an application for permission to appeal against the court’s judgment of 31 July 2009.

Two judgments were handed down by the High Court in relation to modification appeals under section 10(1) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BM, judgment was handed down on 3 July 2009. BM appealed against the decision of the Secretary of State to relocate him to a different town as part of a package of obligations designed to protect the public from a risk of terrorism. The court concluded that although it would have upheld the modification on the basis of the closed material, further disclosure of the closed reasons for the relocation was necessary to comply with article 6 of the ECHR. The Secretary of State decided not to make any further disclosure owing to the damage to the public interest that this would cause. The judge therefore directed the Secretary of State to revoke the modification. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BF a closed oral judgment was handed down at the hearing on 17 June 2009. The court directed the Secretary of State to modify BF’s control order to require him to live at the residence in which he lived before his control order was modified to require him to live in a different town on the basis that the modification was not necessary.

Two judgments were handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to modification appeals under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AR, handed down on 15 July 2009, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld all the obligations subject to appeal as necessary and proportionate. AR has lodged an application for permission to appeal against the court’s judgment. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AN, an oral judgment was handed down at the hearing on 10 September 2009. On the basis of the open material the court found that the requirement on him to live outside London was not necessary and proportionate, but left it open to the Secretary of State to apply to rely on closed material in the case. The Secretary of State subsequently confirmed that he did not wish to apply for permission to rely on closed material in these proceedings.

During this reporting period two judgments were handed down by the Court of Appeal in relation to control orders. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AP, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment on 15 July 2009. It found by a majority of 2:1 that the High Court judge had erred in his decision in AP's case that the combination of a 16-hour curfew with an obligation requiring him to relocate to a different city breached article 5 (right to liberty) of the ECHR. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. GG, the Court of Appeal handed down a unanimous judgment on 23 July 2009. It dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal against a High Court ruling that the inclusion of an obligation in GG’s control order requiring him to submit to a search of his person within his residence was unlawful. The Court of Appeal found that section 1 (3) of the PTA cannot be read as allowing the inclusion of such an obligation.

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

My honourable Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

On 16 September we are publishing a consultation paper on an issue concerning the civil law on defamation in relation to the internet.

This relates to the “multiple publication rule”, under which each publication of defamatory material can form the basis of a new defamation claim, and its effects in relation to online archives. The paper considers the arguments for and against the rule and the alternatives of a single publication rule (which would allow only one claim to be brought in this jurisdiction against particular defamatory material), or the possible extension of qualified privilege to material on online archives in certain circumstances. It also considers in that context what limitation period for defamation claims would be appropriate.

Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be obtained free on the department’s website at: http://www.justice.gov. uk/consultations/consultations.htm. The closing date for consultation is 16 December 2009.

My honourable friend the Minister for Marine and Natural Environment (Huw Irranca-Davies) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

The 2007 Pitt review highlighted the risks of surface water flooding and made a number of recommendations relating to surface water issues which included giving local authorities new roles and responsibilities for local flood risk management.

On 18 August my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn) announced that local communities across England will benefit from £16 million funding to help them tackle surface water flooding.

£9.7 million has been awarded to 77 local authorities for areas where evidence shows that the risk and potential impact of surface water flooding could be highest. Local authorities for all other areas will also be able to bid for a share of £5 million to help them deal with known local flooding problems.

Defra will publish details of how local authorities can bid for the £5 million funding and the criteria on which bids will be assessed. This will be available on the Defra website. Innovative proposals for tackling surface water flooding, especially in rural areas, will be particularly welcomed.

An additional £1 million will be spent on making training, data and other tools available to help all local authorities manage flood risk.

Further details of this announcement can be found on the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/surfacewaterdrainage.htm.

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

The purpose of this Statement is to announce the publication of the results of an audit of Home Detention Custody (HDC) releases from 1 April 2003 to March 2008 who were then subsequently recalled following further charges and convicted. That information is today published and is attached to this Statement.

Context

Home Detention Curfew (HDC) came into effect on 28 January 1999. Eligible prisoners primarily serving between 3 months and less than 4 years may be released on HDC up to 135 days earlier than they would be otherwise, depending on their sentence length.

Registered sex offenders and foreign national prisoners who are liable to removal are statutorily excluded. Offenders serving sentences for certain serious violent offences, including prisoners serving sentences for terrorism legislation offences and prisoners with any history of sexual offending are presumed unsuitable unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Prisoners subject to the release arrangements of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who are sentenced to 4 years or more are not statutorily ineligible for release on HDC but are presumed unsuitable.

Prisoners released on HDC are subject to an electronically-monitored curfew to their home, usually for 12 hours a day. Eligible prisoners must pass a risk assessment, which includes an assessment of home circumstances carried out by probation service, before release can be granted.

Breach of curfew conditions or breach of licence conditions, including alleged further offences or behavioural issues may result in executive recall to prison.

Previous questions in the House have asked how many offenders released on HDC have been recalled following further offences and what offences have been committed by them. We have recently undertaken a very detailed interrogation of the HDC re-offending data used previously. This has shown that we over-reported the number of offences committed by offenders on the scheme. We have taken the opportunity to revise our procedures for calculating HDC reoffending, correcting the previous errors and introducing an improved method for estimating reoffending by these offenders. Offender Management Statistical Analysis Services has assumed responsibility for collating this data in the future.

The revised annual reoffending figures for those on HDC from April 2003 to March 2008 are shown in Table 1 below. Table 2 shows the types of offences committed whilst on HDC.

Future Release of Data

The Ministry of Justice will consult on the publication of data in respect of offenders who breach their licence conditions (including those on Home Detention Curfew) and who are recalled. The Statistical Publication arising from this consultation will include data on re-offending by offenders subject to this scheme.

Methodological Note

Details of offenders starting on HDC are taken from data recorded by the Prison Service. Data on their reoffending is taken from an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) held by the Ministry of Justice. Offenders recorded in the prison data who cannot be found on the PNC are excluded from the figures. Like any large scale recording system the PNC is subject to errors with data entry and recording. The PNC is regularly updated so that further analysis at a later date will generate revised figures.

The figures relate to offenders starting on Home Detention Curfew in each quarter. An offender is considered to have reoffended if, during their period on HDC, he or she committed an offence that was recorded on the PNC as resulting in a caution or conviction; for the offence to count the caution or conviction has to be given within 9 months of the end of the quarter in which the offender started on HDC. Offences resulting in a not guilty verdict or no further action or for which no final outcome is recorded on the PNC are not counted. Breach offences and offences from outside England and Wales are excluded.

Data on HDC start and end dates is taken from data recorded by Prison Service. Where no end date has been recorded or where the end date gives an HDC period longer than the maximum of 135 days an estimate of the length of the HDC period has been derived as follows: for offenders recorded as receiving a custodial sentence of 18 months or longer the HDC period has been set to 135 days; for sentences of less than 18 months the HDC period has been calculated as 1/4 of the sentence length.

My right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:

The latest report on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2009. I commend the report to the House.

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

I wish to update the House on progress on the implementation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) as provided for in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009.

On Thursday 10 September Mr Speaker announced he had appointed an interim chief executive for the IPSA, and that the recruitment process for the IPSA chair and members was to begin. I warmly welcome the appointment of Andrew McDonald as IPSA’s interim chief executive, and the progress being made in implementing the IPSA.

My department has been working with the House of Commons and other interested parties to ensure that the early establishment of the IPSA remains on track. Any expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the IPSA that is properly due to the IPSA will be recovered, subject to Parliament’s approval of the necessary new Estimate for the IPSA, ensuring IPSA’s independence. A new Estimate for IPSA will be presented shortly as part of the Winter Supplementary Estimates for 2009-10.

My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bridget Prentice) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

I am today announcing the outcome of the joint Ministry of Justice and Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on Local Authority Property Search Services—Charges for Property Search Services as it relates to the fee for a personal search of the local land charges register in England. The paper sought views on how and by whom the fee should be set and whether the present fee should be changed. 858 responses were received. They have been carefully considered and the following decisions reached.

First, there should be no change in the present arrangements for the setting of the fee for the time being. Secondly, the present fee will be increased from £11 to £22 for personal searches of the local land charges register conducted on or after 1 January 2010. I have, with the concurrence of HM Treasury, made and laid the Local Land Charges (Amendment) Rules 2009 to give effect to the change.

The Ministry of Justice will today publish a post-consultation report in relation to the consultation and its outcome. Copies of the report Local Authority Property Search Services – Charges for Property Search Services - The Fee for a Personal Search of the Local Land Charges Register have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

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

As the House will be aware, Her Majesty graciously accepted my recommendation that Michael Shields should be granted a free pardon under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. He was released from custody on 9 September. I have placed in the Library the statement I made to the press on that day.

In July 2005 Mr Shields was convicted in Bulgaria of the attempted murder of a Bulgarian national called Martin Georgiev. Mr Georgiev suffered a brutal and unprovoked attack in the Bulgarian resort of Varna where violence flared in the early hours of 30 May 2005. Mr Shields was sentenced to 15 years, reduced to 10 on appeal. In 2006 he was returned to England to complete his sentence here. He applied for a free pardon under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. However, it had been the long-standing practice, on an equally long-standing legal interpretation of the 1983 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, that the “receiving state” had to respect the decision of the sentencing state, so I did not initially entertain the application.

This approach was challenged in a judicial review and on 17 December last year the Administrative Court declared that I should consider the application and said, “the grant of a free pardon would appear to require a conclusion that, taking the Bulgarian courts’ judgment for what it is and without calling in question its correctness on the material which those courts considered, fresh evidence which the Bulgarian court did not consider, taken with the material which they did consider and their judgment upon it, justifies a conclusion that Michael Shields is morally and technically innocent”.

I accepted the judgment of the court and sought straight away to ensure from Mr Shields’ legal team that I had available all the evidence in this case. I appointed senior counsel to assist me and, with the agreement of the Chief Constable, Merseyside Police conducted further inquiries on my behalf.

On 2 July after the most careful consideration of the evidence I made a provisional decision to refuse Michael Shields’ application for a free pardon. I did so because I was not satisfied that Mr Shields passed the test of “moral and technical innocence” that the administrative court expected me to apply.

I made clear at the time that I would consider any further representations before I made a final decision. I also offered Mr Shields’ parents the opportunity of a meeting so they could make representations to me in person.

Written representations I received over the course of the summer did not persuade me that my provisional decision of 2 July had been wrong. However, on 28 August I had a meeting with Mr Shields’ parents. The meeting was also attended by their daughter, by Louise Ellman MP and by Councillor Joe Anderson of Liverpool City Council.

At that meeting I was presented with significant new information which had not been presented to me before. Following further inquiries after the meeting I determined the new information to be both truthful and credible. Once again Merseyside police assisted me. The new evidence profoundly changed my consideration of this matter and showed other, existing, evidence in a new light. What had not previously appeared credible now appeared to be so.

Taking all the evidence together I concluded that Michael Shields was in fact telling the truth when he said he was innocent of the attempted murder of Martin Georgiev. The test of moral and technical innocence had therefore been met so Mr Shields was granted the free pardon he sought and released from custody.

One issue that has emerged from this case is the appropriateness or otherwise of the Justice Secretary exercising a power that involves him in making findings of fact in cases where miscarriage of justice is alleged in cases from abroad. I am clear that it is not a suitable function for the Executive. Indeed, any role for a Secretary of State in referring alleged miscarriages of justice occurring within the jurisdiction to the appeal courts was removed by the 1995 Criminal Appeal Act, which established the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I intend looking at options, though I have yet to form any view as to how future such applications should be handled. I shall, of course, consult and in doing so I will want to hear the views of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and others with an interest.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Paul Clark) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

I have issued today a report in response to public consultation for a scheme of continuous enforcement of motor insurance. The scheme proposes the enforcement of statutory motor insurance by comparing information already held on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register and the motor insurance database maintained by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. The scheme enables identification of a greater number of potentially uninsured motorists than does relying on the police spotting them on the road. In the future registered keepers who do not have appropriate insurance will be committing an offence and may, if they fail to take action following the receipt of a reminder letter, be subject to enforcement action by the DVLA.

I have placed copies of the report in the Libraries of the House.

My honourable friend the Minister for Business, Regulatory Reform and Employment (Ian Lucas) has made the following Statement.

This Government remain committed to the principles of sustainable development. The Strategy for Sustainable Construction is a joint industry and government initiative designed to promote real action on sustainable construction, and focuses upon the principles of Sustainable Development to which the Government as a whole are signed up.

In response to a BERR Select Committee commitment made by Stephen Timms to publish reports on progress and hold conferences in 2009 and 2011, yesterday the Government, jointly with industry, published the progress report on the Strategy for Sustainable Construction.

This progress report is a result of the actions of those organisations responsible as delivery bodies for the targets in the strategy a year on from its launch in June 2008.

Overall, progress has been good and encouraging at this early stage of the process. However, with some deliverables progress has been slower than envisaged in the original strategy and work is ongoing to address these. As delivery of the strategy continues, further work to build on the successes already achieved will be necessary to reach the overarching goals of the strategy.

Copies of the progress report will be placed in the Library of the House.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Paul Clark) has made the following Ministerial Statement.

In answer to Parliamentary Question 136910 [Official Report 15 May 2007, col. 465] asking when retro-reflective markings would become mandatory for newly registered heavy goods vehicles, the then Minister of State, Dr Stephen Ladyman, stated this would be 10 October 2009.

In view of the current economic situation I am announcing that, to reduce regulatory costs on vehicle manufacturers and the haulage industry, this measure will not now become mandatory for new vehicle registrations until 10 July 2011.

Other regulatory simplification measures on vehicle lighting due to be implemented at the same time will continue to be implemented at the earliest opportunity.

My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and Minister for Veterans (Mr Kevan Jones) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

With the death of Harry Patch on 25 July 2009, the nation lost the last known British veteran of World War I (WW1) living in the UK. This was a hugely significant milestone and one which the Government have planned for some time to mark. This service will take place at 10.45 on Wednesday 11 November 2009 in Westminster Abbey in the presence of Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh.

The service is to commemorate the passing of all who served. It will recognise not only the military contribution in the Great War but also that of the civilian population who supported them at home. Attendance at the service will be by invitation only but we hope that a broad cross-section of the population of the United Kingdom, with links to the War, will attend. This is being organised through the Lord Lieutenants in each county. In addition, attendees will include members of the Armed Forces, Government, Ambassadors, High Commissioners and other VIPs.

WW1 had an impact upon this country which endures today, over 90 years after it ended, and I hope that this service will be a fitting occasion when the nation can stand as one as it recognises the debt that we owe and reconfirms that ‘We will remember’ the generation that we have now lost.

My honourable friend the Minister of State (Maria Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

In the Modernising Government White Paper, the Government made a commitment to bring all public services up to the standard of the best and to make the best even better. In line with this commitment, my honourable friend, the Minister of State for Schools and Learners (Vernon Coaker), and I today announce a review of the Youth Justice Board's governance and operating arrangements.

The Youth Justice Board is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to take oversight of the youth justice system in England and Wales, including the secure estate for under 18 year olds.

Since the Youth Justice Board's inception, the ways in which a wide range of services for young people are planned and delivered at a local level have changed significantly. In that context, the Government want to ensure that the Youth Justice Board can continue to support the delivery of the best outcomes for young people and their families and communities, as well as the wider public. The Government also want to ensure that these outcomes are delivered in ways that give the public value for money.

We have asked Dame Susan Street, former Permanent Secretary of the Department for Culture Media and Sport, to fulfil the role of independent chair of the review. She will chair the review jointly with Frances Done, chair of the Youth Justice Board. The review's full terms of reference are available at www.yjb.gov.uk. We have asked the chairs to produce a report and recommendations by the end of February 2010. We expect to publish the report and the Government's response shortly thereafter.

The chairs will be supported by a steering group comprising senior officials from the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Home Office, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Youth Justice Board. The chairs have today issued an invitation to interested parties to submit evidence that they consider relevant within the review's terms of reference.