| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2004 : Column 1118W—continued
Foot and Mouth
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many companies in (a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley are awaiting payment for work carried out during the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease; how much is outstanding in each case; and what the timescale is for resolution of outstanding payments. [153382]
Mr. Bradshaw: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Weston-Super-mare (Brian Cotter) on 6 January 2004, Official Report, column 261W.
The Department is in dispute with three contractors in Lancashire over charges arising, or which are claimed to have arisen, from the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. One of these contractors is based in Chorley.
It would be inappropriate to comment on cases that are the subject of ongoing Court proceedings. Similarly, public comment cannot be made on civil cases that are pending.
Timescales for resolution of disputes are subject to judicial timescales and the willingness, or otherwise, of contractors to engage in alternative disputes resolution procedures.
School Milk
Mrs. Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many education authorities in England take advantage of the EU subsidy to provide school milk. [152800]
Alun Michael: One hundred and fifty six education authorities in England make use of the EU school milk subsidy scheme.
Mrs. Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on the School Milk Scheme in 2003. [152806]
Alun Michael: In England expenditure on the EU school milk subsidy scheme in the 2003 calendar year amounted to £5,275,236.89. Expenditure in England on the national top-up to the EU subsidy, co-funded equally by Defra, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, totalled an additional £1,361,961.27.
6 Feb 2004 : Column 1119W
Swill
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned on the link between foot and mouth disease and processed swill feed. [152254]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Department is not currently undertaking any research into the link between foot and mouth disease and processed swill feed because the feeding of processed and unprocessed swill to animals is banned by EU legislation.
It has long been known that the feeding of under processed swill to animals can cause outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. We are not aware of any outbreaks of foot and mouth disease caused by the consumption of properly processed swill that has not been re-contaminated by unprocessed swill.
HOME DEPARTMENT
Terrorism
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his proposal that the standard of proof in the trial of suspected terrorists should be the balance of probabilities with the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [153046]
Mr. Blunkett [holding answer 5 February 2003]: We need to address the question of how we deal with the serious and continuing threat of international terrorism and suicide bombers, many of whom are not deterred by fear of prosecution and how we can use the criminal law to prevent terrorism, rather than merely reacting after the fact.
I will publish discussion papers shortly on the challenge facing the UK in tackling terrorism effectively. It will be important to have a full debate on all the options presented and I look forward to hearing the hon. Member's proposals at the same time.
National Security
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what mechanisms are in place for informing the general public about changes to the national alert state; [152371]
- (2) what the national state of alert is. [152374]
Mr. Blunkett: The UK has a range of alert systems that apply to the various sectors of the national infrastructure, dependent on the circumstances of each. These are determined in response to centrally prepared security, risk and intelligence assessments. Those sectors are informed of any changes as appropriate.
For reasons of security for any individual sector the policy of the Government and its predecessor is not to announce publicly changes in the Alert State system beyond the sector concerned.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to protect major business sites in London from suicide bombers. [152373]
6 Feb 2004 : Column 1120W
Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detail of protective security measures at specific sites, as this could compromise the safety of those sites.
However, there has been good work, and positive relationships have been developed, between law enforcement and security agencies and private sector businesses. They have allowed the mutual exchange of advice and information on protective security on an individual and group basis.
The Home Office manual 'Bombs: Protecting People and Property' provides public guidance on protective security and is available on the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/protect/atwork/index.html.
Official Secrets Act
Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory restrictions are placed on individuals instructing legal representatives in cases brought under the Official Secrets Act. [152320]
Paul Goggins: Under section 1(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 it is an offence for a member or ex-member of the security and intelligence services to disclose without lawful authority any information relating to security or intelligence obtained through their official position. This could include unauthorised disclosure to his or her legal representative. In cases where other Official Secrets Act provisions apply, the question of whether a person must seek authorisation to disclose will depend on whether the disclosure is likely to or will cause damage as set out in the relevant provisions of the Act.
There is no specific provision in the Act authorising disclosure of information to a legal representative as this would defeat the objective of the Act. However, the authorising entity—usually the employer organisation—will not unreasonably withhold authorisation to disclose to a legal representative information relevant to any criminal charge. The authorisation process itself is subject to judicial review.
Mr. Nigel Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were (a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted under the Official Secrets Act in each year since 1997. [152322]
Mr. Blunkett: Arrest data is not collected centrally at the level of detail requested.
The available information, relating to persons proceeded against at the magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and 1989 is shown in the table. It is not possible from the data held centrally, to identify summary offences under the Official Secrets Act 1920.
Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.
6 Feb 2004 : Column 1121W
| Proceeded against | Found guilty(10) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 1 | 1 |
| 1998 | 2 | 1 |
| 1999 | — | 1 |
| 2000 | 3 | — |
| 2001 | — | — |
| 2002 | 1 | 2 |
(9) These data are on the principal offence.
(10) Persons found guilty may exceed the number proceeded against in some prosecution may have taken place in an earlier year.
Pesticides
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2004, Official Report, column 444W, on pesticides, what assessment he has made of the potential for terrorist use of (a) unrestricted chemicals, (b) unrestricted pesticides, (c) restricted but commercially available chemicals and (d) restricted but commercially available pesticides; [152858]
- (2) what discussions he has had regarding the misuse of pesticides containing aldicarb with (a) the Pesticides Safety Directorate, (b) the Health and Safety Executive and (c) the Health Protection Agency. [152859]
Mr. Blunkett [holding answer 4 February 2004]: Counter terrorist and protective security planning takes account of the many available substances which could potentially be used by terrorists but have legitimate industrial, commercial or household use. Regulation of such dangerous substances is, of course, determined by environmental, health and public safety considerations in the first instance, and is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
We continue to strengthen our defences against terrorist attacks by having appropriate protective security measures in place.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |