| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Quarantine Reform
Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of his Assessment Panel on Quarantine Reform indicating their qualifications. [16952]
Mr. Rooker: The members of the Advisory Group on Quarantine are:
Professor Ian Kennedy LL.D (Chairman), Professor of Health Law, Ethics and Policy at the School of Public Policy, University College London. He was previously president of the Centre for Medical Law and Ethics, Kings College London and chaired the Government's Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation in 1995-96.
Dr. Barbara Bannister MSc FRCP, Consultant in Infectious and Tropical Diseases at the Royal Free Hospital, London.
Mr. Paul deVile BVetMed, a small animal veterinary practitioner in Eastbourne. He is a past president of both the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animals Veterinary Association.
Dr. Chris Dye who is on secondment from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines as Senior Epidemiologist at the World Health Organisation, Geneva.
Professor Os Jarrett, Professor of Comparative Virology at the University of Glasgow.
Professor Herbert Sewell, Head of Immunology at University Hospital Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.
and
Sir Joseph Smith who is the retired head of the Public Health Laboratory Service. He is a former member of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
Mr. Rooker: The terms of reference for the Advisory Group on Quarantine are as follows:
"To assess the risk of introduction of rabies into the United Kingdom under the current policy of quarantine for pet animals and under alternative policies, particularly the five set out below. The assessment should advise on, and take full account of the practical aspects of enforcement of the policies in determining the risk posed by each. The assessment should also consider and advise on the costs and benefits of each of the policies, and of the risk of introducing other animal diseases transmissible to humans.
Option (a): maintain the existing policy whereby imported animals are housed in secure quarantine facilities for six months;
Option (b): reduce the length of time animals are required to spend in quarantine;
24 Nov 1997 : Column: 411
Options (c) and (d): allow in animals for which reliable alternative assurances can be obtained, in particular those from EU Member States and certain rabies-free countries, through restrictions based on identification, vaccination, blood testing, certification and a system of checks after entry. In option (c) checks would be made at the point of entry, in option (d) these checks would be made away from the point of entry in approved reception centres. Where these assurances cannot be met, animals would be quarantined as now;
Options (e) and (f): give up quarantine altogether. Under option (e) imported animals only would be subject to pre-entry vaccination. Under option (f) all domestic cats and dogs would be vaccinated. Farm livestock and foxes in affected areas would be vaccinated were the disease to be introduced."
One Grade 7, one Veterinary Adviser, one Higher Executive Officer and one Administrative Officer have been assigned to support the work of the Advisory Group. Other staff will be involved as necessary.
Flood Warnings (Somerset)
Mr. David Heath: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve floodplain zoning and flood warning systems in Somerset. [17071]
Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency is responsible for carrying out surveys in relation to its flood defence function and for arranging for flood warnings to be issued. It has recently undertaken a survey of all main-river floodplain in Somerset, under the provisions of Section 105(2) of the Water Resources Act 1991. In its latest Corporate Plan, the Agency has set out targets for its flood warning arrangements which will involve the development of new telemetry, forecasting and warning dissemination systems.
Bruton Flood Detention Dam
Mr. David Heath: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what survey of the reservoir site was conducted prior to the construction of the Bruton flood detention dam. [17072]
Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency has advised that surveys, including topographic and ground site investigation, were undertaken by consulting engineers to satisfy the requirements of the Engineers appointed pursuant to the Reservoirs Act 1975.
Mr. David Heath: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the design standards of the Bruton flood detention dam. [17073]
Mr. Morley:
The Environment Agency has advised that the design standard of the Bruton flood detention dam was established at the time of construction by the consulting engineers, in accordance with current legislation and best practice. A review was subsequently undertaken in 1995-96, by consulting engineers Babtie using the latest methodologies. This independent hydrological assessment indicates that the dam currently provides protection against floods in excess of the 1 in 100 year return period.
24 Nov 1997 : Column: 412
Mr. Paice:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 7 November 1997, Official Report, columns 363-65, on the former regional panels, if he will list the addresses of each of the individual panel members. [17348]
Biotechnological Invention
Dr. Gibson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of commercial monopoly rights over natural DNA sequences. [15341]
Mr. Battle: Under current United Kingdom law (the Patents Act 1977) it is possible to obtain patent rights for DNA sequences but only where they are isolated from the body, only where such sequences simultaneously meet the three general conditions for patentability: they are new, they are inventive and they are capable of industrial application. Discoveries, for example that a particular sequence exists in nature, are not patentable. This legislation provides for exceptions to patent rights for the benefit of those who wish to carry out research relating to protected DNA sequences.
Significant progress in genetic engineering and biotechnology in general has been made in the United Kingdom throughout the twenty years this legislation has been in place. No assessment has been made during that time to identify the precise impact on patent rights to such progress, and to disentangle their role in facilitating the recovery of the costs of research and development from that of other factors which influence decisions to invest in research and the marketing of biotechnoligical products.
However, the current uncertainty which exists in this area of law in Europe at present has the potential to act as a deterrent to investment in this industry. This Directive could play an important role in harmonising and clarifying national laws.
Mr. Livingstone:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government took to ensure that members of the public were informed of a consultation on the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. [16736]
Mr. Battle:
Information concerning the Commission's proposal was circulated widely, including by use of the internet. As a result, over 150 organisations have made their views known to me or my Department and have taken part in a consultation exercise, including a major meeting of interested parties held in London in October. Organisations should include those representing environmental interests, health and patient groups, animal welfare, the professions, industry, trade unions and religious groups.
Mr. Benn:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions on (a) employment and (b) small biotech companies. [16751]
24 Nov 1997 : Column: 413
Mr. Battle:
Since the European Commission's proposed Directive is substantially consistent with current United Kingdom legislation (The Patent Act 1977), no specific assessment has been made of the impact of the proposed Directive. The Patents Act has been in place throughout the development of the modern biotechnology industry in the United Kingdom, which already employs over 10,000 people, a figure forecast to rise to 14,000 over the next two years. A sound intellectual property regime is considered essential to financing support for small and medium biotechnology companies and to safeguard their contribution to improving the quality of life through developments in this technology.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |