|Previous Section||Home Page|
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when she was first made aware of the incidence of Venezuelan equine encephalitis in Mexico; and what evidence she has as to the regional incidence of Venezuelan equine encephalitis in Mexico; (2) from what date the ban on the importation of horses from Mexico to the United Kingdom and the EU was introduced; what reasons were given for the introduction of the ban; what consideration was given to the implementation of the ban on a regional basis; and when she expects the ban to be reconsidered.
Mr. Waldegrave: My Department first learned of the outbreak of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis in Mexico on 3 August 1993 on receipt of the OIE Disease Information Bulletin, volume 6, No. 29 of 30 July 1993. According to the OIE Bulletin, the geographical areas affected by the outbreaks were several districts in the state of Chiapas.
EC animal health rules regarding the importation into the Community of equine animals from third countries, directive 90/426/EC, prohibit the importation of animals from countries or parts thereof which have not been free of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis for at least two years. As from the date the outbreak of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis was confirmed the Mexican veterinary authorities would not have been able to sign the required official health certification confirming, amongst other things, that Mexico had been free of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis for at least two years. Therefore, any importation into the Community of equine animals from Mexico after the initial outbreak would have been contrary to EC law.
On 21 September 1993 the EC Commision adopted Commission decision 93/507/EC formalising the prohibition on imports from Mexico until further notice. In the light of specific animal health guarantees provided by the Mexican veterinary authorities, on 27 July 1994 the EC Commission adopted Commission decision 94/478/EC which permits the re-importation into the Community from the metropolitan area of Monterrey, Mexico of registered horses which have been temporarily exported from the EC.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of whether the recent announcement by Norway to resume commercial whaling in the 1994 season is contrary to the agreement reached at the 1994 International Whaling Commission meeting, that no authorisation was given to any activity contrary to the moratorium on commercial whaling.
Mr. Jack: As Norway lodged an objection to the original decision by the International Whaling Commission in 1982 to establish a moratorium on commercial whaling it is not, under IWC rules, bound by this decision. At this year's IWC meeting, the UK and a number of other countries again urged Norway to reconsider its decision to resume commercial whaling activity and to comply fully with the moratorium. Norway has chosen to ignore these requests. The UK will continue to press the Norwegian Government to think again.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agreement or settlement on the issue of whaling was contained in Norway's acquis communautaire to join the European Union.
All EC legislation on whales and trade in whale products will apply to Norway on its accession to the European Union.
Mrs. Roche: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many overseas visits she and each of her Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many she, or each of her Ministers, participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if she will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.
Mr. Jack: Between 1 January and 30 June 1994 MAFF Ministers made a total of 20 overseas visits. Nine visits were to EC Councils of Ministers; the remaining 11 were in support of bilateral relations, enlargement negotiations and trade promotion. None of these visit involved fund-raising activities for the Conservative party. The details are as follows.
Ministerial Visits Date Venue ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minister 24 January |Brussels |Agriculture Council 21-22 February |Brussels |Agriculture Council 28-29 March |Brussels |Agriculture Council 11 April |France |Bilateral with French Agriculture Minister 25-26 April |Luxembourg |Agriculture Council 30-31 May |Brussels |Agriculture Council 20-23 June |Luxembourg |Agriculture Council Minister of State 24 January |Brussels |Bilateral with Commissioner Paleokrassas 25 January |Netherlands |NTV Amsterdam 26-28 February |Brussels |Enlargement negotiations 7-9 March |Brussels |Enlargement negotiations 14 March |Germany (Bonn) |Bilateral with German State Secretary (Fisheries) 15-16 March |Brussels |Enlargement negotiations 30 March |Netherlands (The Hague) |Bilateral with Dutch Fisheries Minister 12 April |Luxembourg |Fisheries Council 9-10 June |Luxembourg |Fisheries Council Parliamentary Secretary (Commons) 28 February |France |Paris Salon (SIA) 30 May |Brussels |Health Council Parliamentary Secretary (Lords) 30 January-1 February |Germany |ISM Cologne 5-17 April |China |Trade promotion including attending |AgroExpo, Beijing
Mr. Tyler: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the implications of the European Commission White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment-The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century", for research and development of biotechnology relevant to United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Jack: In the Commission's view, the implications of its White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment" for research are that it should be focused on the most promising areas of development, among which it identifies new unsubsidised outlets for agricultural raw materials, and that there should be greater co-ordination at a European level. The Commission also wishes to develop improved means for using scientific advice in the preparation of regulations. The potential of biotechnology to have an impact on the competitiveness of United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture has long been recognised by the Ministry and is reflected in its research expenditure plans. MAFF expenditure on biotechnology has grown to some £20 million per year. Its research programmes address both the development of biotechnologies for agricultural and horticultural application and assessment of associated risks, particularly in deliberate release of modified organisms, to ensure that safety regulations are scientifically based. Recent initiatives include a £1.5 million programme on crop molecular genetics and a new £1 million programme on non-food agriculture which the Minister announced in July.
Column 141The Ministry will continue to liaise with other Government Departments and the research councils, notably BBSRC, which fund research and development on biotechnology of relevance to agriculture and horticulture, so as to ensure a coherent approach to realising the potential referred to in the White Paper. Likewise, the United Kingdom will participate fully in the European Union's fourth framework programme which includes 552 mecu or £434 million for biotechnology research and development.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Thirty per cent. of the 1,897,800 hectares designated as less-favoured areas in England lies within the boundaries of currently designated English environmentally sensitive areas.
Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which decisions were taken by vote, at the EU Fisheries Council on 28 September in Brussels.
Mr. Jack: I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of EU Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 28 September with my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office. No votes were taken at this Council.
The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for future rules of access for all EU fleets to western waters after 1 January 1996. These would provide for the integration of Spanish and Portuguese fishing into the common fisheries policy.
I said that these proposals were not acceptable. They were far too complex, imposing excessive administrative burdens on fishermen, contrary to the commitment at the June Council to reduce bureaucracy. Moreover, they could be operated only at quite excessive cost. They lacked credibility and would be unenforceable. I explained in detail to the Council the united position taken by the British fishing industry in rejecting the proposals. I emphasised the need for an adequate replacement for the Irish box when that expires on 31 December 1995.
The great majority of other member states also felt that the Commission's proposals were not the right way forward.
The Council agreed that a different approach was needed, which should be as simple as possible to administer and control. All member states were asked to make suggestions for alternative ideas so that the November Council could have a developed alternative approach to consider.
The Commission's paper on the state of the Community fisheries market was also considered by the Council. It was agreed that there was a need to tackle problems of structures and marketing at various levels. Many measures are already in place but the Commission will be coming
Column 142forward with appropriate further measures in the light of the discussion. I emphasised the importance of the European fishing industry making greater efforts to focus on the needs of the market. The Council also considered the Commission's discussion paper and draft proposals for setting medium term management objectives and strategies for certain fisheries. Most member states recognised the value of taking decisions on fish TACs and quotas in the context of a longer term view of the prospects for stocks. However, more work is needed at technical level before the Council can reach conclusions. The Commission's proposals to phase out drift netting for most species over four years was also discussed. I took the opportunity to register the United Kingdom's concern about the disturbances in this summer's tuna fishery. No decision was taken on the Commission's proposals, and the discussion showed that there was no consensus on them. There was, however, a clear need to examine the scientific justification for what the Commission had proposed, since this seemed to be deficient, and the Union's scientific, technical and economic committee will undertake this.
The Council also discussed the EU/Morocco agreement, the acquisition of arctic cod, a forthcoming conference on Mediterranean fisheries, the state of the salmon market, a possible increase in the autonomous tariff quota for cod entering the EU and the regime for tuna for the EU canning industry. In addition, the Council adopted a statement urging an orderly conclusion to the fisheries dispute in the Barents sea.
Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and what votes were taken, at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 19 to 20 September.
Mr. Jack: The Agriculture Council on 19 20 September, at which the United Kingdom was represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed the welfare of animals in transit, agricultural structures policy and reforms of the wine and fruit and vegetables re gimes. There were also brief discussions under any other business of a French memorandum on the future of European agriculture, inspection costs in the plant health sector and transport aid for Greek fruit and vegetable producers. No decisions were made nor votes taken.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the intervention board executive agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. gentleman direct.
Column 143Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Gavin Strang, dated 17 October 1994:
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about current intervention stocks in the United Kingdom, as the matter is within my operational responsibility.
The disposable stocks in intervention at 16 July were:
|Tonnes ----------------------------------------- Beef: |47,173 Cereals: Barley |1,291,193 Feedwheat |38,396 Common Wheat |3,290 Rye |- |---- Total Cereals |1,332,879 Butter: |5,389 Skimmed Milk Powder: |6,406
Ms Lynne: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to discuss with consumer groups the labelling of fresh produce with a list of the chemicals that were used in their production for information of consumers.
Mrs. Browning [holding answer 21 July 1994]: None at present. In its review of food labelling published in 1991, the Food Advisory Committee considered that labelling of all such produce with a general statement relating to all treatments used in their production might be potentially confusing for consumers, especially as residues may not be present in a product so labelled. The committee did suggest an indication of substances deliberately added as post-harvest treatments, but the European Commission has commissioned a study on the labelling of produce treated with pesticides. Since food labelling issues have to be decided at EC level, we need to await the results of this study.
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the farm and conservation grant scheme comprehended in the past; what it comprehends today; what proportion of the cost of each eligible scheme, in and outside the less-favoured areas was met by the Government before and after variations to the scheme made since its inception; and what, in real and actual terms, has been the expenditure on each element of the scheme for each year both inside and outside the less-favoured areas.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The farm and conservation grant scheme, set up in 1989, covers a wide range of investments. The items eligible for grant and the rates of grant payable since the scheme's inception, both within and outside the less-favoured areas, are set out in the scheme legislation, copies of which are available from the Library of the House. The statutory instruments concerned are:
The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 SI No. 128
The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 SI No. 1126
The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 SI No. 1338
The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1993 SI No. 2901
The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 SI No. 1302
The Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989 SI No. 219 The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1990 SI No. 1125
The Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991 SI No. 1630 The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI No. 3174
The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1993 SI No. 2900
The table shows in cash terms expenditure on each element of the scheme for each year both inside and outside the less-favoured areas since the scheme's inception. A similar table showing expenditure in real terms is not readily available.
Farm and Conservation Grant (89 & 91) Schemes Expenditure from start of Scheme to end March 94 by Financial Year in England Grant Paid in £ million 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Investment Category |LFA |Non LFA |All Rates |LFA |Non LFA |All Rates |LFA |Non LFA |All Rates |LFA |Non LFA |All Rates |LFA |Non LFA |All Rates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Traditional Buildings |0.038 |0.158 |0.196 |0.196 |0.916 |1.112 |0.337 |1.184 |1.521 |0.36 |1.007 |1.367 |0.41 |1.127 |1.537 Land Improvement |0.017 |0.029 |0.046 |0.16 |0.07 |0.23 |0.254 |0.059 |0.313 |0.319 |0.055 |0.374 |0.326 |0.051 |0.377 Horticulture |0 |0.011 |0.011 |0 |0.975 |0.975 |0.008 |1.702 |1.71 |0.002 |1.459 |1.461 |0.026 |2.513 |2.539 Conservation |0.302 |0.188 |0.49 |1.149 |0.803 |1.952 |1.731 |1.4 |3.131 |2.325 |1.724 |4.049 |2.616 |2.199 |4.815 Waste Handling |0.524 |4.729 |5.253 |2.435 |16.143 |18.578 |3.073 |19.737 |22.81 |3.751 |17.131 |20.882 |3.076 |15.808 |18.884 Diversification |- |- |- |- |- |- |- |0.006 |0.006 |0.029 |0.245 |0.274 |0.021 |0.338 |0.359 Others |0.001 |0.003 |0.004 |0.013 |0.037 |0.05 |0.013 |0.033 |0.046 |0.031 |0.037 |0.068 |0.012 |0.023 |0.035 |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- |---- Total All |0.882 |5.118 |6.00 |3.953 |18.944 |22.897 |5.416 |24.121 |29.537 |6.817 |21.658 |28.475 |6.487 |22.059 |28.546
Column 144covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994, for each region and county of England;
(2) what is her latest estimate of the total number of persons whose pay and conditions are covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994.
Mr. Waldergrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Agricultural Wages Order 1994 covers both England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is replying separately in respect of the workers covered by the order in Wales. Based on the June agricultural and horticultural census, it is estimated that the numbers of workers in England covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994 was 171,732 as at June 1993. Estimates for each region and county in England, excluding workers on minor holdings, are given in the following table.
Estimated number of workers covered by the Agricultural Wages Board for each county in England as at June 1993<1> |Number ------------------------------------------- Cleveland |358 Cumbria |3,115 Durham |1,301 Northumberland |2,248 Tyne and Wear |264 |---- North Region |7,286 Humberside |5,020 N/Yorks (N'Allerton) |7,550 N/Yorks (Beverley) |1,899 North Yorkshire |9,449 South Yorkshire |1,146 West Yorkshire |2,085 |---- Yorks/Humberside Region |17,700 Derbyshire |2,388 Leicestershire |2,388 Lincolnshire |10,908 Northamptonshire |1,882 Nottinghamshire |2,498 |---- East Midlands Region |20,064 Cambridgeshire |5,071 Norfolk |10,067 Suffolk |6,625 |---- East Anglia Region |21,763 Bedfordshire |1,397 Berkshire |1,066 Buckinghamshire |1,685 East Sussex |2,709 Essex |5,979 Greater London (E) |284 Greater London (SE) |611 Greater London |895 Hampshire |5,281 Hertfordshire |1,556 Isle of Wight |629 Kent |13,112 Oxfordshire |2,592 Surrey |2,708 West Sussex |5,068 |---- South East Region |44,677 Avon |2,810 Cornwall |4,502 Isles of Scilly |56 Cornwall and Isles of Scilly |4,558 Devon |6,556 Dorset |3,152 Gloucestershire |3,108 Somerset |5,371 Wiltshire |3,244 |---- South West Region |28,799 Hereford & Worcester |8,145 Shropshire |4,485 Staffordshire |3,706 Warwickshire |2,347 West Midlands |486 |---- West Midlands Region |19,169 Cheshire |3,884 Greater Manchester |1,119 Lancashire |5,447 Merseyside |649 |---- North West Region |11,099 <1> The data in this table relate to main holdings only, ie. excludes data on minor holdings. The number of workers covered by the Agricultural Wages Board comprises the following categories: regular hired workers and seasonal and casual workers.
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 14 July, Official Report, column 715 , if she will publish the evidence that employers in a number of sectors of the industry are now questioning the value of keeping the present arrangements for statutory wage determination across the agriculture sector.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Comments received as part of last year's consultation exercise on the future operation of the Agricultural Wages Board have already been made available for scrutiny in the Ministry. We have written to those offering comments since the end of the consultation period and--in cases where consent has been given--we have made these available in the same way.
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a breakdown of all the additional financial support available to farmers from her Department and other bodies in the less- favoured areas for 1993 94; and what was the uptake of each scheme.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Additional financial support available to farmers in less-favoured areas in 1993 94 from my Department and the uptake in 1993 94 are listed in the table below. I am not aware of any schemes administered by other bodies specifically targeted to farmers in less-favoured areas
Scheme |Number of payments ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hill livestock compensatory allowances |<1>19,542 Sheep annual premium scheme |11,000 Farm and conservation grant scheme |4,284 Notes All figures relate to number of payments in England. <1> This figure incorporates a carry over claims for 1992-93.
Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those of her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to
Column 147legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.
"Prior to legislation proposals, the Government are required to consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, and the Veterinary Products Committee. The Government are not required to publish their responses"
Mr. Jack: It is not possible to calculate an average percentage change in prices under the common agricultural policy which is weighted to reflect accurately the importance of particular commodities. The table, based on information contained in the notes placed in the Library of this House following the 1992 and 1993 price fixing agreements, shows the changes in intervention or equivalent prices in ecu/tonne, of agricultural commodities over the period cited.
Table showing changes in Intervention Prices: August 1992-May 1994 Intervention prices (ecu/tonne) |August 92 |May 94 |Percentage Change ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wheat |163.49 |115.49 |-29.36 Barley |155.33 |115.49 |-25.65 Maize |163.49 |115.49 |-29.36 Durum wheat |220.87 |115.49 |-47.71 Rice |313.65 |309.60 |-1.29 Butter |2927.80 |2803.30 |-4.25 Beef |3430.00 |3216.40 |-6.23 Pigmeat<1> |1897.00 |1872.00 |-1.32 Sheepmeat<1> |4229.50 |4174.52 |-1.30 Sugar |542.20 |523.30 |-3.49 Dried Fodder<2> |178.61 |178.53 |-0.04 Cauliflowers<3> |115.20 |106.60 |-7.47 Tomatoes<3> |93.60 |107.00 |14.32 Apples<3> |143.30 |133.10 |-7.12 Pears<3> |142.00 |145.40 |2.39 Peaches<3> |208.10 |200.60 |-18.46 Oranges<3> |208.10 |214.90 |3.27 Mandarins<3> |227.50 |233.40 |2.59 Lemons<3> |226.60 |239.90 |5.87 Grapes<3> |207.40 |230.20 |10.99 Apricots<3> |237.40 |234.40 |-1.26 Aubergines<3> |71.10 |70.40 |-0.98 Nectarines<3> |269.50 |226.90 |-15.81 Satsumas<3> |124.30 |135.40 |8.93 Clementines<3> |180.80 |184.00 |1.77 Olive Oil |2023.70 |1947.96 |-3.74 Tobacco<4> |3096.14 |1898.64 |-38.68 Silkworms<5> |111.81 |111.76 |-0.04 Cotton<2> |1027.90 |1014.62 |-1.29 Table wine<6> |35.44 |34.65 |-2.23 <1> Basic price <2> Guide price <3> Withdrawal price <4> Average normal price <5> Ecu/box <6> Average guide price/hl
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total cost of the common agricultural policy, including the agricultural monetary reserve, as a proportion of the total EU budget.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The CAP, including the agricultural monetary reserve, comprises about 54 per cent. of the total EU budget for 1994. On present forecasts it will not be necessary to draw on the monetary reserve.
Dr. Strang: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1994 (a) including and (b) excluding the monetary reserve.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Commission's latest estimate of EC expenditure on the CAP in 1994 is 35.7 billion ecu. This estimate is well within the agricultural guideline and there is unlikely to be any need to draw on the monetary reserve.
Mr. Waldegrave [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Exchequer cost of common agricultural policy expenditure in the United Kingdom in the current financial year is estimated to be just over £2.7 billion. The United Kingdom also contributes to the cost of the CAP in other member states through our net contributions to the EC Budget.
Mr. Alton: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what advice his Liverpool office gives to small and medium-sized enterprises who wish to apply for objective 1 funding on finding a public sector partner; and how he reconciles this advice with the European Union's policy on whether private sector companies can receive objective 1 funding directly;
(2) what is his Department's policy on allowing small and medium-sized enterprises benefiting from objective 1; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Eggar: Assistance available to small and medium Merseyside businesses includes help with premises, access to finance, strategic planning, training, technology transfer, industrial quality and design, marketing and joint venture arrangements. There are already a number of such business support schemes; the structural funds will be used to expand their availability, intensity and quality. They will also be used to bring forward new schemes, where there is a clear market need and value for money can be demonstrated. Structural funds grants will be paid to bodies administering the schemes, not direct to companies.
The single programming document adopted by the European Commission states
"Private Sector firms may apply directly to the programme (ie to the SPD Secretariat, in the Government Office) for structural funds support".
Column 149Such applicants will be directed to the bodies which actually administer the schemes, including the training and enterprise councils business links--when operational--Chambers of Commerce, business associations and local authorities; for, as the single programming document continues,
"This will be appraised and administered through bodies designated by the Programme Monitoring Committee".Of course applications may also be made to the administering bodies direct.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what disbursements have been made under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 to (a) non-United Kingdom citizens or (b) non-United Kingdom residents in each of the last five years.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: In the current calendar year the Policyholders Protection Board has made payments amounting to US$86.8 million to policyholders based overseas. The board does not keep records on policyholders' citizenship. Figures for the previous four calendar years were negligible.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to reach a decision resulting from his competition policy review of the sale of Thorn EMI's defence division to Thomson-CSF; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to the Post Office caused by the construction company V.A.T. Watkins going into receivership; and what is the projected cost of the new Mount Pleasant Depot.
Mr. Eggar: The implications for Royal Mail of the contractor V.A.T. Watkins Ltd. going into receivership are still the subject of resolution between Royal Mail's consultants and the receiver. The costs of the construction work at Mount Pleasant are the subject of a number of separate commercially confidential contracts between Royal Mail and the various suppliers, one of which was V.A.T. Watkins Ltd.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the marketing panel that advises on future civil aircraft issues, together with the principal occupation of each member.
Mr. Philip Bolt
Market Evaluation Manager
British Aerospace (Airbus Limited)
Mr. Richard P. Botwood
Director General and Secretary
Chartered Institute of Transport
Mr. Stephen Charters
Market Research Manager
Civil Engine Group
Rolls Royce PLC
Mr. Sam Cherry
Manager of Corporate Marketing
Short Brothers PLC
Mr. Howard Davies
British Air Transport Association (BATA)
Mr. Graham Forbes
General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association (GAMTA) Mr. John Friedberger
British Helicopter Advisory Bureau (BHAB)
Professor Keith Hayward
International Relations and Politics Department
Mr. Peter Ibbetson
Director and Head of Aerospace
Nat West Markets
Mr. Nicolas May
Project and Business Executive
Westland Aerospace Limited
Mr. Anthony Starforth
Avro International Aerospace