| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
PRIME MINISTER
Bill of Rights
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the benefits of introducing a written constitution and bill of rights. [124914]
The Prime Minister: We have no plans to do so.
13 Jun 2000 : Column: 576W
Women's Institute Conference
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the invitation to him as Prime Minister to address the Women's Institute Conference at Wembley. [125725]
The Prime Minister: The invitation to address the Women's Institute was extended verbally.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if his prepared speech for the Women's Institute Conference included an explicit reference to Clause 28. [125726]
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a verbatim record of the Downing street media briefings on Tuesday 6 June concerning the Women's Institute speech the following day. [125727]
The Prime Minister: Verbatim records of Downing street media briefings are not routinely kept; however a record of all media briefings can be found on the Downing street website at www.number-10.gov.uk.
Special Advisers
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister what decisions he has reached on Lord Neill's recommendations on Government special advisers; and if he will make a statement. [125729]
The Prime Minister: We intend to present our full response to Parliament before the summer recess.
Vasili Mitrokhin
Mr. Ennis: To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee's report into the handling of the information provided by Vasili Mitrokhin; and if he will make a statement. [125947]
The Prime Minister: I have today laid before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the Intelligence and Security Committee's Report into the Security and Intelligence Agencies' handling of the information provided by Mr. Mitrokhin. In consultation with the Committee, a small number of excisions from the original text have been made on grounds of national security. I have also today laid before both Houses of Parliament the Government's Response to the Committee's Report.
The Government are very grateful to the Committee for the Report of its Inquiry. Mr. Mitrokhin's information is uniquely valuable. Its authenticity has been proved beyond doubt. The Government have drawn a number of conclusions from the information itself, from the publication project and from the findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee's Inquiry. The most significant are:
- i. The KGB posed a major threat to British interests but the United Kingdom's Security and Intelligence Agencies were notably successful in containing this threat. After the expulsion of more than 100 Soviet intelligence officers in 1971, the KGB found the United Kingdom an extremely difficult target and operational environment.
- ii. Mr. Mitrokhin himself is a brave man who was determined in his efforts to expose the KGB. The Government pay tribute to him.
13 Jun 2000 : Column: 577W
- iii. Credit is due to the Secret Intelligence Service for its role in getting Mr. Mitrokhin and his material safely to the United Kingdom. This was a tremendous intelligence coup. Credit is also due to the Security and Intelligence Agencies for their work in exploiting the material. This has been beneficial not only for the UK but also for many other countries.
- iv. The publication project, leading to "The Mitrokhin Archive", allowed Mr. Mitrokhin's material to be made available to a wider readership. The Government believe that it was right to put this historic record into the public domain.
- v. Lessons have been learned from the handling of Mrs. Norwood's case.
Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our intelligence and security agencies for their dedication and professionalism in protecting our vital national interests.
HEALTH
Mead Webber Plant
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Professor Sir John Krebs was first informed about problems at Mead Webber; by whom; and what action he took. [122067]
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Ms Suzi Leather, the agency's deputy chair, was fully informed of the situation at Mead Webber by the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) on Saturday 22 April. Ms Suzi Leather and Professor Sir John Krebs, Chairman of the Food Standards Agency, discussed the situation at this plant with the chief executives of the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency over the following week.
The MHS is an executive agency of the Food Standards Agency and the Food Standards Agency holds the Chief Executive of the MHS responsible for the operation and management of the MHS and its staff. Given the concerns expressed about the Mead Webber closure, Professor Sir John Krebs has taken and maintains a close interest in the situation at the plant, and was as a consequence fully informed of the outcome of a meeting which took place on Sunday 30 April between the Chief Executive of the MHS and Dr. Richard North, Food Safety Adviser representing Mead Webber Ltd. At this meeting, it was agreed that, given Mead Webber Ltd.'s concerns:
- An independent investigation into the actions of the Meat Hygiene Service at the Mead Webber plant would take place;
- The outcome of this independent investigation would be placed in the public domain; and
- No Hygiene Assessment System score would be published for the plant for the first month after re-opening, to enable plant management and the Meat Hygiene Service to work constructively together to address any remaining concerns.
13 Jun 2000 : Column: 578W
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that there is no formal record of the conclusions reached by official veterinary surgeons (OVSs) in the five years prior to 10 April 2000 on the acceptability of trimming by meat inspectors at the plant operated by Mead Webber Ltd.
The Meat Hygiene Service's policy and instruction to inspection staff on carcase trimming is detailed in the MHS Operations Manual, Chapter 6, Page 4. It states:
- Carcases and offal presented for inspection with evidence of visible contamination must be appropriately trimmed to your satisfaction before application of the health mark. Trimming of contamination is normally a task for premises staff working under your direction. However, you may trim minor contamination provided it does not interfere with the inspection routine. Where this cannot be done on the dressing line the affected carcase or offal must be detained for more detailed attention.
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Mr. Yogaratnam was the official veterinary surgeon (OVS) and principal official veterinary surgeon (POVS) for the Mead Webber plant, and as such had sole responsibility for ensuring its full compliance with public health and animal welfare regulations. While contract OVSs were used to provide locum cover during the times that Mr. Yogaratnam carried out his POVS duties, they reported to Mr. Yogaratnam as the responsible OVS and POVS for the Mead Webber abattoir.
Mr. Yogaratnam reported to his line manager, Mr. Ivor Pumfrey, Meat Hygiene Service Regional Director (Wales). Mr. Yogaratnam's technical line manager was Mr. Peter Soul, MHS Director of Operations.
Mr. Yogaratnam was also OVS and POVS at three licensed cutting premises. Mr. Yogaratnam was POVS for 16 other plants in the area. As a POVS he was responsible for contract performance management of Contract OVSs working in 10 other plants in the area.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the faxed communication of 24 April from Mr. Webber of Mead Webber to the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service asking for an explanation of the changes in the MHS's trimming policy was not (a) acknowledged and (b) answered. [122068]
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that as Monday 24 April 2000 was a Bank Holiday, the Meat Hygiene Service offices were closed. Following this, the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service was due to be on annual leave until 2 May. However, having been made aware of the situation at the plant operated by Mead Webber Ltd., he returned early and on 28 April 2000 answered Mr. Webber's undated fax which had been sent on 24 April 2000.
13 Jun 2000 : Column: 579W
In his response, the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service acknowledged receipt of the fax sent by Mr. Webber and informed him that he had commissioned an investigation into Mr. Webber's concerns and would write again with the conclusions of that investigation.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what brief was given to Mr. John Cartwright by the Meat Hygiene Service prior to his attendance at the Mead Webber plant on 26 April. [122064]
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that an independent investigation is to be carried out as soon as possible into the actions of the Meat Hygiene Service at Mead Webber's plant at Eardisley. This will include scrutiny of the actions of Mr. Cartwright.
It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the prohibition by Mr. Turner of the Meat Hygiene Service on carcase trimming by the meat inspectors at the Mead Webber plant was reversed on 20 April; and by whom and for what reason the decision was subsequently changed again. [122057]
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) have met with a representative of Mead Webber Ltd. and agreed to an independent inquiry into MHS's actions at Mead Webber and the publication of its findings. The events of 20 April 2000 are to be fully investigated as part of that independent investigation. It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason a letter was sent by an official veterinary surgeon to Mead Webber on 19 April concerning remedial works prior to the meeting planned for 26 April; and what account the letter took of remedial works and redecoration already agreed. [122043]
Ms Stuart [holding answer 15 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that an investigation is to be carried out as soon as possible into
13 Jun 2000 : Column: 580W
the actions of the Meat Hygiene Service at Mead Webber's plant at Eardisley. This will involve scrutiny of correspondence.
It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation is completed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |