Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heald:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultancy contracts the Smith Group has entered into with his Department since May 1997. [116775]
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 641W
Mr. Charles Clarke
[pursuant to the reply, 30 March 2000, c. 215-16W]: The Smith Group is reporting to the Home Office on a consultancy study to examine the technical and costs implications of interception at Internet Service Providers. The Smith Group is also reporting to the Home Office on some technical aspects of the proposed Government Technical Assistance Centre which will be responsible for complex processing (including decryption) of intercept produce. However, these consultancy studies are not funded by the Home Office. The costs are being met by the intercepting agencies using a joint budget for the strategic development of the interception capability.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 642W
Mr. Simon Hughes:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the revenue cost of (a) Rotherhithe, (b) Tower Bridge, (c) Southwark, (d) Walworth, (e) Camberwell, (f) Peckham and (g) East Dulwich police stations in each year for the years 1990-91 to 1999-2000. [113822]
Mr. Charles Clarke
[pursuant to his reply, 13 March 2000, c. 94W]: The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the figures requested for the financial year 1994-95 are not held centrally. The revised revenue costs for each of the police stations within Southwark Divisions from 1994-95 to date are given in the table.
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 641W
1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 | 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-2000 (9) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Camberwell | 80,902 | 151,767 | 101,582 | 168,512 | 88,911 | 38,536 |
Walworth | 239,546 | 244,126 | 281,200 | 265,272 | 260,652 | 167,572 |
Peckham | 225,157 | 353,337 | 310,582 | 350,333 | 301,601 | 142,366 |
Rotherhithe | 178,522 | 426,663 | 81,135 | 66,910 | 107,672 | 41,359 |
Southwark | 392,504 | 334,247 | 354,665 | 327,201 | 299,317 | 115,746 |
Tower Bridge | 153,142 | 247,566 | 105,650 | 103,901 | 77,480 | 37,412 |
East Dulwich | 144,414 | 144,420 | 165,915 | 217,071 | 188,978 | 91,912 |
(9) Expenditure only up to November 1999
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 641W
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that gelatine (a) as part of a food product and (b) as a separate ingredient imported into the United Kingdom is (i) produced by manufacturers certified according to ISO 9000 international standard, and (ii) has not been contaminated with brain, spinal cord and ocular tissues of cattle (A) born, (B) reared and (C) finished in countries where incidents of BSE have been reported; [117009]
(3) what steps he is taking to ensure that gelatine (a) as part of a food product and (b) as a separate ingredient imported into the United Kingdom (i) has not been produced using hides from cattle that have shown signs of neurological diseases and (ii) is produced using bones and hides from countries (1) with no incidence of BSE and (2) which meet the OIE standards; [117010]
(4) what steps he is taking to ensure that gelatine (a) as part of a food product and (b) as a separate ingredient, imported into the United Kingdom is (i) free of BSE and (ii) accurately labelled with the country of origin and production. [117003]
7 Apr 2000 : Column: 642W
Mr. Nick Brown [holding answer 30 March 2000]: There is a legal ban on the use of bovine raw materials of UK-origin to make gelatine for use in food. My Department carries out regular inspections of gelatine manufacturers in the UK to ensure compliance with the requirements.
There is no EU requirement for gelatine manufacturers to be certified according to the ISO 9000 standard, which is an audit standard to provide quality assurance guarantees.
In line with OIE guidelines, the Specified Risk Material Order 1997 requires imported gelatine and related products intended for human or animal consumption and which may come from countries with a significant risk of BSE, to be accompanied by official veterinary certification confirming that they do not contain and were not derived from Specified Risk Material. These import controls will remain in place until EU SRM controls are agreed.