| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Road Noise Reduction
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what road noise reduction surfaces his Department has recently approved for use. [109378]
Mr. Hill: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Jon Seddon to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 10 February 2000:
Mr. Oaten:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will treat applications in respect of properties on existing roads for double glazing as a method of noise reduction for residents in the same way as such applications in respect of properties on new roads. [109379]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to respond to your question about what road noise reduction surfaces his Department has recently approved for use. In the absence of the Chief Executive I am responding to the question.
In addition to porous asphalt and exposed aggregate concrete which are included in the specification for trunk road construction, to date the Highways Agency has approved, for use on trunk roads in England, fifteen proprietary surfacing products which have been shown to generate significantly lower noise levels than conventional surfaces. Six of these products were approved in the past year. They are already being widely used for surfacing roads that need maintenance.
For the future, a new scheme for approving a range of innovative products has been set up with other highway authorities under which the British Board of Agreement will certify that products meet the specified performance requirements.
Mr. Hill: The Noise Insulation Regulations apply to properties affected by existing roads which have been physically altered as well as to new roads. I have no plans to extend the scope of these Regulations to properties affected by unaltered roads.
Genetically Modified Crops
Mr. Robertson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current progress of genetically modified crop trials in the United Kingdom. [107886]
10 Feb 2000 : Column: 236W
Mr. Meacher:
The farm scale evaluation programme is now starting its second year. The studies are designed to evaluate the impact on farmland wildlife of the management of herbicide tolerant GM crops, with their associated herbicide, as compared with equivalent non-GM crops managed conventionally. The ecological studies are being funded by the UK Government and carried out by independent contractors on fields of GM and conventional crops provided by the industry body SCIMAC. The studies are being overseen by an independent Scientific Steering Committee reporting to the Secretary of State.
The first year of the farm scale evaluations included plantings of oil seed rape and fodder maize in the spring, followed in the autumn by winter oil seed rape. The Scientific Steering Committee reported at the end of the first year that the methodology of the farm scale evaluations was scientifically robust, and gave a firm base from which to proceed to full-scale trials this year. A further announcement about this year's sites will be made shortly.
In November 1999, a renewed agreement between Government and the industry body SCIMAC on the conduct of the farm scale evaluations was reached, to cover the three years through to harvest of crops planted in 2002, including agreement that no general unrestricted cultivation of GM crops will take place in the UK until the farm-scale evaluations are complete. Under the renewed agreement, the farm scale evaluations are likely to be extended in scope this year to cover a further crop, GM beet, dependent on the advice of the Scientific Steering Committee on the scope and validity under UK conditions of similar trials being carried out in Denmark.
The fields grown for this year's trials will also be used to monitor the gene flow between the GM and non-GM crops to determine the depth of cross pollination.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the wind-up costs of the millennium experience. [108772]
Janet Anderson
[holding answer 7 February 2000]: The actual financial costs of winding up the New Millennium Experience Company would depend on the commitments and liabilities outstanding at the time when any such decision were taken. Neither the Government, nor the Millennium Commission, nor the Board of NMEC have plans to wind up the New Millennium Experience Company prior to the completion of its remit to run the Millennium Experience to 31 December 2000.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if loans made to the New Millennium Experience Company by the Millennium Commission may be subordinated. [106442]
Janet Anderson
[holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Millennium Commission has not made any loans to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) or any other organisation. The Commission cannot make loans as it has no statutory powers to do so.
10 Feb 2000 : Column: 237W
All grant made to NMEC is repayable if any surplus is achieved from its operations or asset disposals after the organisation has met its other contractual liabilities. However, this grant does not constitute a loan as there is no guarantee of repayment or certainty of the amount which might be repaid to the Commission. It is open to the Commission to impose, as a condition of grant, the terms on which it will be repaid.
Mr. Yeo:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the foods sold in the Millennium Dome that (a) do and (b) do not meet standards required of food produced in the United Kingdom. [108957]
Janet Anderson:
There are over 35 catering outlets in and around the Dome at Greenwich selling a wide range of food from snacks to cordon bleu. All are required to meet the same statutory requirements as apply to commercial catering and food outlets in the UK.
Mr. Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the target number of visitors to the Millennium Dome for 2000. [108963]
Janet Anderson:
The New Millennium Experience Company's target is 12 million. Visitor numbers in the first month, at just over 366,400 represent just under 4 per cent. of the target. This mirrors the visitor attraction industry norm for January.
Mr. Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the daily capacity of the Millennium Dome. [108962]
Janet Anderson:
The licensed capacity of the Dome site, at any one time during the day, is 35,000 plus 2,000 staff.
Mr. Cohen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what (a) public and (b) Lottery funds were used in connection with the Millennium River of Fire; and if he will make a statement. [105904]
Janet Anderson:
The "Big Time" event on New Year's Eve in central London incorporated a wide range of activities and entertainment throughout the day attended and watched, safely, by about 3 million people. The River of Fire was one part of a spectacular firework display which itself was one part of Big Time. The 17 minute display was enjoyed by people along the Thames embankment and from other vantage points, as well as by a world-wide television audience. No public or lottery funds were involved in paying for the pyrotechnics. The New Millennium Experience Company, who were asked by the Government, the Millennium Commission and other public agencies and organisations involved in the event to co-ordinate and manage it, have, in the absence of major commercial sponsorship for the London-wide event to complement Millennium Commission's grant under their Millennium Festival programme, underwritten these costs.
10 Feb 2000 : Column: 238W
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000, Official Report, column 472W, on computers, if any of the hackers accessed computer files containing (a) the personal details of jurors or witnesses and (b) details of the jury selection procedures. [109388]
Jane Kennedy:
There has only been one recorded instance, in 1995, when a member of staff was found to have possible unauthorised access to juror details. The person, a casual employee, had discovered a supervisor's password and had altered system access permissions. Subsequent investigation found no evidence of tampering with data. The staff member was dismissed.
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000, Official Report, column 472W, on computers, what action has been taken to prevent internal hacking incidents on Court Service computers, particularly files containing (a) the personal details of jurors or witnesses and (b) details of the jury selection procedures. [109387]
Jane Kennedy:
The Court Service carries out security risk analyses on all its major computer systems to ensure they comply with the security guidelines laid down in HMG's Manual of Protective Security. The countermeasures implemented include unique user names, secure passwords and access to systems and areas of systems on a 'need-to-know' basis. Passwords are changed regularly. All staff are provided with guidance on how to maintain system security. Some juror details are held on systems which are owned and managed by the Department's PFI partners. Security measures have been conveyed to them and are contractual.
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2000, Official Report, column 472W, on computers, what type of information was accessed by the hackers from computers in the Court Service; and what action was taken (a) to identify the hackers and (b) to discipline Court Service staff involved in the incidents. [109389]
Jane Kennedy:
The type of information potentially available to an internal 'hacker' varies according to the system accessed. Approximately half of the incidents involved stand-alone PCs or networked PCs used in the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department for administrative purposes; the remainder involved operational systems, such as those used for case management. Most incidents involved misuse of another member of staff's user name and password. The information potentially at risk was either a person's own work in progress, or in a few instances, details of cases. All incidents were investigated and remedial action applied. No evidence of compromise of Protectively Marked (or classified) information nor of a breach of the Data Protection Acts was found.
The staff responsible were identified in half of the incidents and all received verbal warnings, except for one who received a written warning and one who was dismissed.
10 Feb 2000 : Column: 239W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |