Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what guidance his Department issues on the classification of businesses in the hospitality industry offering free wi-fi access to the internet as (a) communications providers and (b) internet service providers under the terms of the Digital Economy Act 2010. [12099]

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 6 September 2010]: The Department has not yet offered guidance on classification under the Digital Economy Act 2010 to those providing free wi-fi accesses to the internet. The relevant requirements of the Digital Economy Act will not have any effect until a code has been approved by Ofcom and Parliament. Ofcom is reviewing the responses to its consultation on its draft obligations code. It will issue a statement when this review is completed with a view to approving a code by the end of the year.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps he is taking to prevent illegal file-sharing by those accessing the internet through free wi-fi hot spots; and if he will make a statement. [12100]

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 6 September 2010] : The relevant provisions in the Digital Economy Act are intended to address the online infringement of copyright irrespective of whether such activity is undertaken via a personal internet connection or through a commercially-or publicly-provided wi-fi network.

Many providers of public wi-fi networks, such as universities, already take measures to prevent infringement which go far beyond what the Act requires, but the Act brings regulatory certainty and consistency.

However, the Government recognise that more clarification is needed. The Initial Obligations Code, on which Ofcom has recently consulted, will set out how this will work in practice.

Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con): I am mindful of your instruction that this is a narrow debate about referring the matter to the Standards and Privileges Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it might help if I clarified one or two aspects regarding the two examinations of the matter that have been carried out by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

We first looked at the issue in 2007. It is important to distinguish between two different episodes, both of which potentially affect hon. Members. The first episode was the arrest and conviction of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman, specifically for phone hacking. The second was Operation Motorman, carried out by the police, which identified a private investigator who had been employed by a large number of journalists from many different newspapers, usually to undertake what is called blagging rather than hacking.

While hacking is an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, blagging is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. Both are criminal offences, but in the second case, there is a public interest defence. No journalists were ever prosecuted in the Motorman case, so we do not know whether a public interest defence might have been used. However, the sheer number of blags or attempts to seek information in breach of the 1998 Act led us to believe that what was happening was, in large part, fishing by journalists and did not involve the pursuit of specific public interest matters. We revisited the matter in July 2009, after the publication of a story in The Guardian providing new evidence that led us to question the evidence that we had received in the first inquiry that Clive Goodman was the only journalist who had any knowledge of, or involvement in, phone hacking at the News of the World.

As I have suggested, there is evidence from both inquiries that hon. Members were affected. Specifically in relation to the first episode, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) was named in the indictment of Mr Mulcaire as one of those who had suffered from hacking. When it came to Motorman, there were literally thousands of names. We know, for instance, that Peter Kilfoyle was one of them, although he did not know that until it was subsequently uncovered. In both cases there was concern that the victims were not informed, either by the police in relation to Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, or by the Information Commissioner in relation to Motorman.

As the House knows, the Select Committee took considerable evidence from a number of journalists-principally from the News of the World in relation to Clive Goodman, but from other newspapers too concerning Operation Motorman. At that time-it is important to remember that we are talking about events from some time ago-we found that there appeared to be a culture across Fleet street in which such practices were routine, and that law breaking was taking place in many news rooms. We were also assured that things had changed. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was a little unfair to suggest that the Press Complaints Commission did nothing. I have been critical of the Press Complaints Commission in the past, but it certainly did do something: it made it absolutely plain that such practices were unacceptable and required editors to tighten their rules, and we received assurances that such practices had stopped.

We now know that there is one journalist under investigation by the News of the World potentially for hacking, but it was the News of the World who acted on that and then notified the Press Complaints Commission that it was doing so. I very much hope that the events that we are discussing today relate to some time ago and that such practices have ceased right across Fleet street.

I understand the frustration felt by hon. Members during our inquiry-indeed, I shared it. We did make use of some of the powers that the hon. Member for Rhondda referred to, particularly in obtaining documents that various witnesses were, at first, unwilling to provide. We certainly had some arguments over which witnesses would give evidence. For example, we were unable to get evidence from either Clive Goodman or Glenn Mulcaire-or, indeed from Mr Ross Hall, who was in Peru at the time, although I understand that he has now returned to this country.

I recognise that new evidence might well have emerged. Some of the information that has entered the public domain in the past few days certainly appears to contradict some of the evidence that we received. The Standards and Privileges Committee has slightly more powers available to it than the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and I in no way oppose the motion. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda that this is an extremely serious matter, and it is not just about MPs. The illegal obtaining of information about any individual is to be deplored. I therefore strongly welcome the moves that have taken place to ensure that it does not continue.

I have one small concern, although I am not in any way accusing the hon. Member for Rhondda. This issue is mired in politics, and the Standards and Privileges Committee needs to be very careful to ensure that it is not used as a vehicle for political ends. I am sure that that will not be the case under its new Chairman, whom I congratulate on his election.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who attended the meeting relating to Dr Ejup Ganic held at his Department on 27 February 2010; and what (a) matters were discussed and (b) decisions were made at that meeting. [16004]

Mr Lidington: No meeting was held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on Saturday 27 February 2010.

Before Dr Ganic's provisional arrest, however, the Metropolitan police held a meeting on 1 March 2010 at New Scotland Yard. Officials from the FCO and Home Office attended the meeting which was to discuss Serbia's request for Dr Ganic's provisional arrest and the issue of possible immunity from arrest and detention. Pursuant to a warrant issued by a district judge at City of Westminster magistrates court, the Metropolitan police later arrested Dr Ganic.

Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with the government of Serbia on the judgement given by Mr Tim Workman, Senior District Judge at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 27 July 2010 in the case of the Government of the Republic of Serbia v. Ejup Ganic. [16005]

Mr Lidington: The Government have had no discussions with the Government of Serbia on the judgment given in the case of the Government of the Republic of Serbia v. Ejup Ganic.

22. Mr Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has for the future of the prison building programme; and if he will make a statement. [17833]

Mr Blunt: The Ministry of Justice is committed to publishing a Green Paper on Rehabilitation and Sentencing, consulting on our longer term plans for offender management. As a consequence the Ministry will re-evaluate its strategy for prison capacity.

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.