| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
31 Oct 2006 : Column 265W—continued
Margaret Hodge
[holding answer 30 October 2006]: The Department received representations from the Confederation of British Industry, Association of British Insurers and Institute of Directors in response to the Government’s consultation on the directors’ annual Business Review at the beginning of this year. The CBI and IOD did not support the introduction into the review of any additional reporting requirements from the former statutory Operating and Financial Review (schedule 7ZA of the Companies Act 1985), but made no particular comments about contractual and other relationships. The ABI thought that companies should in any case be reporting the matters included in the previous legislation to the extent relevant for an understanding of the company and its capacity to succeed in the creation of shareholder value. The more pressing concern that these organisations raised was in relation to liability in respect of reporting and I subsequently introduced amendments to the Companies Bill to clarify the liability regime. We also received a recent representation from the IOD expressing concern about the timing, intent and effect of the Government’s amendment to the Business Review. As I made clear at Report, it remains for the directors’ judgment to decide
what is material to report. Furthermore, the Bill includes a confidentiality exception in relation to information about impending developments or matters in the course of negotiation. I am meeting representatives from the IOD, CBI and other industry organisations this week to discuss their concerns about amendments 821 and 822.
Corus
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he (a) has had and (b) plans to have with (i) Corus and (ii) prospective buyers of Corus in respect of protection of the existing British Steel pension scheme. [98010]
Malcolm Wicks: No such meetings have taken place or are planned as this is currently a matter for the pension scheme Trustees concerned. Tata Steel has tabled proposals in order to ensure certainty on the long-term security of the Corus pension schemes. We understand that constructive discussions on this offer have taken place between Tata and the Trustees, and as a result a memorandum of understanding was signed on 25 October subject to the detail of further due diligence.
Departmental Staff
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department recognises the International GCSE as an acceptable substitute for a GCSE for the purposes of recruitment. [96869]
Jim Fitzpatrick: DTI recruitment is competence-based, focusing on skills and experience rather than formal qualifications. Applicants are requested to provide details of their formal qualifications when they apply for a vacancy. This is to provide background information on their educational attainment and does not form part of the selection criteria. An International GCSE is considered an acceptable substitute for a GCSE.
EU Convergence Funding
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to conclude negotiations with the EU Commission on European Union convergence funding for West Wales and the Valleys. [96522]
Margaret Hodge: As a result of the agreement reached on the next EC budget at the European Council of December 2005, West Wales and the Valleys will receive full convergence funding of €1,850 million in structural funds receipts from 2007 to 2013 (at 2004 prices). Further details are available in my written statement to Parliament on the structural funds of 23 October 2006, Official Report, columns 72-74WS.
Post Office
Dr. Alasdair McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he expects to make an announcement on the future of the post office network before the end of December 2006. [98262]
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government are working with the Post Office on a forward strategy for the network as a matter of priority. The aim is to finalise a forward strategy for the network before Christmas.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Animal Experiments
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position the Government took on the decision to impose new EU rules requiring new laboratory tests on animals for chemicals that have been on the market since before 1998; how many additional animals he estimates will be subject to experiment annually as a result of these rules; and if he will make a statement. [95322]
Ian Pearson: The Government fully support the overall objectives of Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) as well as the specific provisions contained in the Common Position which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in June 2006.
REACH will identify hazards and enable any risks to human health and the environment to be more effectively controlled. This is necessary as there are around 30,000 substances manufactured or imported in quantities above one tonne in the European Union, but we have adequate data on the environmental and health effects of only a small proportion of them.
However, within this context, one of the key objectives of REACH is a minimisation of animal testing. Where there is no suitable, validated alternative to animal tests, they will be kept to the minimum necessary to provide the information needed for the protection of human health and the environment. Several provisions are included in the Council Common Position to ensure that this is the case. For example:
(i) there is an obligation for companies to work together through a system of “one substance, one registration”;
(ii) all available animal test data must be shared with other companies and tests must not be repeated;
(iii) there is a requirement to use wherever possible alternative sources of information (for example, computer modelling tools or in vitro tests);
(iv) any proposals for testing using animals will be subject to regulatory review by the European Chemicals Agency.
Against this background of measures, it is not possible to estimate the number of animal tests that might be necessary as a result of REACH.
Cheesemaking
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of EU regulations on traditional cheesemaking in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [95057]
Caroline Flint: I have been asked to reply.
The new European Union food hygiene legislation, which came into force on 1 January 2006, is structured so that it can be applied flexibly and proportionately
according to the size and nature of the food business. Traditional cheesemakers are benefiting from that. The Food Standards Agency ran a food safety management initiative for specialist cheesemakers between 2002 and 2004. The initiative, which was designed to help cheesemakers to comply with the hygiene legislation, has been evaluated and is widely regarded as a success.
Chemical Weapons
Mr. Meale: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there have been reported cases of UK fishing vessels having caught (a) chemical weapons and (b) their component parts in either their nets or trawlers in the last 20 years. [93569]
Derek Twigg: I have been asked to reply.
Reports of encounters with munitions in the marine environment are generally made to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), which is part of the Department for Transport. MCA staff have advised that they are not aware of any reports of UK fishing vessels having caught chemical weapons or their component parts in either their nets or trawlers in the last 20 years.
The Ministry of Defence has no record of any reported cases of UK fishing vessels having caught chemical weapons or their component parts in either their nets or trawlers in the last 20 years.
Dairy Products
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment of the level of antibiotics in milk and dairy products his Department has made in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [96761]
Mr. Bradshaw: Council Directive 96/23/EC requires member states to monitor for the presence of certain substances and residues in food-producing animals and animal products. This included antibiotics in milk with effect from January 1998. Commission Decision 97/747/EC stipulated that raw bovine milk should be tested, and sets out other criteria, such as:
the number of milk samples to be collected, based on forecast production;
the proportion of those samples that must be tested for authorised antimicrobial substances, such as antibiotics; and
the proportion tested for substances, including antibiotics that, because of safety concerns, are not allowed to be used in the EU in food-producing animals.
The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is the competent authority for the surveillance programme in the UK. Member states are required to send their annual plans for surveillance, containing the above information, to the Commission. Details of the validated analytical methods used in the UK, which in the case of milk screens for a wide range of antibiotics, are also included. The results are also sent to the Commission.
The results of the testing of UK cows' milk are given in table 1. This shows since 1997, in a total of some 18,000 analyses for antibiotics, that only 5 samples
were found to contain residues of antibiotics above the relevant statutory limit. All of these were of authorised veterinary medicines.
The VMD carries out additional testing of dairy products, such as cheese and cream, under its non-statutory surveillance scheme. The results are given in table 2. From a total of some 700 analyses since 1997, only one sample of imported cheese contained a detectable residue.
The results of this surveillance have been published on the VMD’s Annual Reports on Surveillance from 1998-2000, which can be found at http://www.vmd.gov.uk/publications/annreps/annreps.htm and from 2001 onwards in the annual reports of the independent Veterinary Residues Committee which can be found at http:/www.vet-residues-committee.gov.uk/.
| Table 1: Results of surveillance for antibiotic residues in UK cows’ milk | |||
| Year | Analyses for antibiotic residues | Samples with detectable residues | Samples at or above the reference point( 1) |
| (1) For authorised substances, the reference point is the ‘maximum residue limit’. The EU set this limit, which is the maximum concentration of a residue of a particular veterinary medicine that is legally allowed to be present in or on a food. For unauthorised or banned substances, any residue detected by the UK authorities is reported as ‘positive’. (2) To date | |||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |