Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports she received on the steps taken by Interpol between the issue of a diffusion notice relating to Dr Ejup Ganic in May 2009 and the arrest of Dr Ganic on 1 March 2010; and whether there is an outstanding red notice against Dr Ejup Ganic further to his discharge from proceedings in the UK. [16006]

Nick Herbert: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary received no reports concerning the steps taken by Interpol between the issuing of a red notice and Dr Ganic's provisional arrest, pending receipt of an extradition request, on 1 March 2010.  Interpol London can neither confirm nor deny whether the diffusion notice in respect of Dr Ganic is still extant.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) on how many occasions and for what periods the website of the Intellectual Property Office has been unresponsive as a result of denial of service attacks in the last three years; [18672]

(2) what reports he has received on the denial of service attacks on the Intellectual Property Office's website on 16 October 2010; and if he will make a statement; [18673]

(3) what reports he has received on denial of service attacks undertaken on websites carried out under the banner of Operation Payback; and if he will make a statement. [18674]

Mr Vaizey: This Department was approached by one private sector company that was suffering a denial of service attack attributed to Operation Payback. Officials advised that company where to seek advice and to report the attack to the police. In the past week this Department has been working with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) on the similar attack on their website. This is the first time in the last three years that the Intellectual Property Office website has been unresponsive as a result of denial of service attacks. The IPO have taken advice from experts within Government and their service has now been restored. The Government clearly abhor this sort of direct action and the impact it has on businesses consumers and citizens who rely on access to Government websites for the delivery of important services; and call on those taking part to behave responsibly. The question as to whether this can be regarded as a criminal act is a matter for the appropriate authorities.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when the amount of public money available for the arts has inevitably had to be reduced, it is all the more important that we should try to increase business sponsorship and philanthropy? Does he agree that Arts and Business has an exceptionally good record in that area, and that it would therefore be rather strange to cut the amount of money going to it at this time?

Mr Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his well-informed question. He is absolutely right that at a time like this, boosting philanthropy and other sources of income for the arts is extremely important. Arts and Business has done some valuable work. Obviously its funding is a matter for the Arts Council, which operates at arm's length. However, I am pleased to be able to tell him that before the end of the year, we will be announcing a package of measures designed to boost philanthropy and help to strengthen the fundraising capacity of arts organisations-something that will be helpful to them in difficult times.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the House of Commons Commission, which posts in the House of Commons Service entitle the holder to accommodation (a) in the gift of the House Service and (b) paid for from the public purse; and what the address is of each property owned by the House Service which is put at the disposal of such staff. [20072] [Official Report, 12 November 2010, Vol. 518, c. 3MC.]

Sir Stuart Bell: The following positions in the House entitle the holder to accommodation: Clerk of the House, Serjeant at Arms, Speaker's Secretary, Head Office Keeper and two Senior Office Keepers. Sleeping facilities are provided for the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Assistant Serjeant at Arms, Clerk Assistant, Clerk of Committees and Clerk of Legislation, reflecting their particular need to be available on the parliamentary estate over prolonged periods and at unpredictable times. The addresses of the accommodation are: 2 Parliament street, 3 Parliament street, 2a Canon row, 2b Canon row, 4 Canon row, 102 Rochester row and 22 John Islip street. The sleeping facilities are also used by other staff when there is a need to do so.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to the public purse was of the extradition case The Government of the Republic of Serbia v. Dr Ejup Ganic concluded by the judgment of 27 July 2010. [14291]

Nick Herbert [holding answer 9 September 2010]: It is not possible to provide a complete or accurate breakdown of costs incurred in this or any other individual extradition case. A number of Departments and agencies are involved in extradition cases including the Home Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and HM Courts Service; and the cost of each case is (which differs) dealt with as part of the overall and larger case load.

Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome the Government's statement this morning, which appears to address a number of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on reform of the libel system. However, on the specific issue of libel tourism, is the Secretary of State aware that only last month the Senate Judiciary Committee voiced support for federal legislation in America to allow US courts to negate the judgments of UK courts in libel actions, on the basis that UK courts do not give sufficient recognition to the need for freedom of expression? Does he accept that that is a matter of profound concern that we need to address as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Straw: Yes. The hon. Gentleman properly draws attention to the fact that our defamation laws have developed in rather an unbalanced way. They are now, for example, having a chilling effect on legitimate and important scientific research. We therefore have to bring them back, not into direct symmetry with those of other jurisdictions, but into a better balance.

Mr. John Whittingdale (Maldon and East Chelmsford) (Con): Notwithstanding that, does the Secretary of State accept that our success in a number of sports in recent years, particularly cricket and golf, has been largely due to the huge amount of money that has gone into those games as a result of the sale of broadcasting rights? The ECB has estimated that listing the Ashes tests will cost it £100 million. Will the Secretary of State think about that very carefully when he considers the Davies report? If he proceeds with the listing, huge damage will be done to grass-roots sports throughout the country.

Mr. Bradshaw: We will consider all representations very carefully. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about the potential impact on some of the sporting organisations, although some of the figures that are being bandied about may be open to challenge. There is a balance to be struck between the understandable desire of sporting organisations to make a lot of money by selling television rights and the right of the public to have access to some of the big sporting occasions that the nation enjoys.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent assessment he has made of the risks of the recreational use of methadone; [314415]

(2) what recent representations he has received on the classification of methadone; and if he will make a statement. [314416]

Mr. Alan Campbell: Based on the hon. Member's subsequent clarification, this answer addresses mephedrone, not methadone.

Mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone) is a stimulant drug which is structurally related to cathinone and methcathinone, both of which are controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), whom we are required by statute to consult before bringing forward legislation under the 1971 Act to Parliament, is currently considering the harms of mephedrone and related cathinone compounds as a priority. The ACMD's latest letter on its consideration of these drugs is available at:

In addition to the ACMD's letter, representations have been received from Members of Parliament and the public.

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what arrangements are in place for the provision of footage obtained from the broadcast pool camera at the Iraq Inquiry to news agencies and news providers; [314411] [Official Report, 1 March 2010, Vol. 506, c. 12MC.]

(2) if she will make it her policy to ensure that all video news agencies providers have access to low-resolution footage from the broadcast pool camera at the Iraq Inquiry.

9 Feb 2010 : Column 895W

Tessa Jowell: The Cabinet Office is not responsible for the broadcast footage of the Iraq Inquiry. The UK Broadcasting Pool, a partnership between the BBC, Sky News and ITN, is responsible for distributing footage from their cameras in the Inquiry's hearing room. Other broadcasters would need to make arrangements with the pool, not the Government or the Inquiry. There is already an agreement to provide footage to all Iraqi broadcasters at no cost.

The Cabinet Office, as the sponsoring department for the Inquiry, has a contract with the Pool to receive footage for use on the Iraq Inquiry website, which is made available to the public for free.