|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what safety testing procedures apply to the active ingredients of plant protection products prior to such products obtaining approval for commercial use. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: Plant protection products are subject to a rigorous, safety based, system of regulation. Council Directive 91/414/EEC established a harmonised framework for the authorisation of plant protection products in Europe. There is a two tier system with active ingredients being registered at community level and products containing these ingredients being registered at national level, but in accordance with common rules.
The directive includes detailed rules as to what data should be supplied for active ingredients (annex II). Guidance for member states as to how to evaluate these data and reach decisions is provided in annex VI to the directive.
The data required, and subsequent regulatory risk assessments, cover such issues as physical and chemical properties; toxicology; impurities and metabolites; operator,
worker and bystander (including resident) exposure; residues and consumer exposure; environmental exposure; and the risk to wildlife.
Full details of these requirements can be found in Directive 91/414/EEC. A copy of the directive (including annexes II and VI) is available on the website of the Health and Safety Directorates Chemicals Regulation Directorate at:
Mr. Goodwill: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make an assessment of the likely effects of underwater seismic surveying using seismic cannons on shellfish and other commercial fish stocks. 
Huw Irranca-Davies [holding answer 8 June 2009]: The UK is aware of the potential effects of underwater seismic activity on marine life and we are, and will continue to assess the impacts that these activities may have an all marine organisms, including shellfish and other commercial fish stocks. The UK is part of The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR convention) and currently work is being undertaken by an expert group within OSPAR on the effects of underwater sound on marine life, with findings to be published very soon.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding his Department has allocated to the Red Squirrel Protection Partnership in each of the last five years. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: In June 2006, the Red Squirrel Protection Partnership was awarded a three-year rural enterprise scheme grant totalling £148,000 to support the control of grey squirrels for the purpose of protecting red squirrel populations.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effect on the red squirrel population of changes in the levels of the grey squirrel population. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The interaction between the red and grey squirrel is not straightforward. They can live in the same area for up to 15 years, but in the end, the greys displace the reds. Where greys carry Squirrelpox virus, they can displace the reds within a very short period of time as the virus is normally fatal to reds while the greys remain unaffected.
Our policy in England is to protect the remaining red squirrel populations that appear to have the best chance of survival. These include the populations on the Isle of Wight and Poole Harbour Islands where no grey squirrels are present and in the 17 designated red squirrel reserves in northern England. These have associated buffer zones
where the culling of grey squirrels is actively encouraged. The Forestry Commission and Natural England recognise the importance of monitoring red and grey squirrel populations in these areas.
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effects of new housing developments on wildlife corridors in the South East. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: There are no formal recognised wildlife corridors in the south-east of England, therefore no assessment of corridors as such has been made. However, the potential impact of housing developments on biodiversity would need to be carried out in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. In addition local planning authorities must have regard to biodiversity in line with duties imposed by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the PentiP computer system to be delivered; and what recent estimate he has made of the cost of delivering and implementing the system. 
Mr. Hanson: The PentiP procurement exercise is now in its concluding stage and the final cost will not be known until the contract has been awarded. The current expectation is that the total cost of designing, developing and implementing PentiP will be in line with the figure of £19.3 million, as per the previous answer provided on 29 September 2008, Official Report, column 2328W.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the answer of 5 November 2008, Official Report, columns 601-02W, on genetics: databases, into what category of offence each record identified on the Police National Computer fell. 
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has received from (a) the Association of Electricity Producers and (b) Drax Power Limited since 2005. 
Mr. Hanson: The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre does not own or lease any office space. Its office is situated in a building leased by the Metropolitan Police Service. The floor area is around 100 sq mm.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals detained by the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre have subsequently been (a) given custodial sentences and (b) detained in psychiatric hospitals. 
Mr. Hanson: The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) does not detain people. All assessments and decisions regarding a person's treatment and any possible detention under the Mental Health Act are made by local health services.
Since 2006, when FTAC began operation, 246 people have been detained under the Mental Health Act following a referral from FTAC and a subsequent decision by local health services. No individual has received a custodial sentence as a result of FTAC involvement.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been detained by the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in each of the last three years; and what the average length of time was for an individual to be (a) examined by a registered medical practitioner and (b) interviewed by an approved social worker in each such year. 
Mr. Hanson: The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) does not detain individuals as a routine part of its work. Staff have assisted in conveying 27 people to a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 since FTAC began operation in October 2006.
When FTAC identifies a person as being in need of mental health care, it alerts their general practitioner and local psychiatric services, which then provide whatever appropriate help in the community, or in hospital, they consider necessary, using appropriate existing legislation. These local services operate independently of FTAC and carry responsibility for any decisions made on patient care and treatment, including whether or not to detain the patient.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre has made use of police powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. 
FTAC police officers, like all police officers, may make use of their general police powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to take a person who appears to be suffering from mental disorder, and in immediate need of care or control, to a place of safety i.e. a psychiatric hospital. When people are removed to hospital under section 136, they are examined by a registered medical practitioner and interviewed by an approved social worker, not associated with FTAC, in order to make any necessary arrangements for their treatment or care.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) police officers, (b) psychiatric nurses, (c) psychiatrists and (d) psychologists were employed by the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in each year since it was established. 
(a) 10 police officers, comprising one detective chief inspector, one detective inspector, one detective sergeant, six police constables and one police support worker;
(b) Three forensic community mental health nurses;
(c) 0.8 whole time equivalent consultant forensic psychiatrist;
(d) 0.5 whole time equivalent forensic psychologist.
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on the establishment of the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre; and what its running costs have been in each year since its establishment. 
Mr. Hanson [holding answer 12 May 2009]: The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre was established in October 2006. Over the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Home Office provided a total of £507,262.21 as a contribution to the start-up and establishment of FTAC. Ongoing running costs are now met in part by the Department of Health, and in part by the Metropolitan Police Service, through the Police Grant.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what files her Department holds on (a) the War Crimes Bill of (i) 1989-90 Session and (ii) 1990-91 Session and (b) the War Crimes Act 1991; and if she will make a statement. 
Responsibility for the formulation of the criminal law, including the offences in the War Crimes Act 1991, moved from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007. We have not, in the time available, been able to retrieve and review those files and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
Austrias Federal Agency for State Protection and Counter Terrorism (BVT) monitors the occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents in Austria. The most recent figures available on anti-Semitic incidents in Austria are from the BVTs 2008 report. These show that in 2007 there were 343 right-wing extreme, xenophobic/racist and anti-Semitic incidents (those reported to the police by individuals or organisations) of which, 15 were exclusively classified as anti-Semitic. In 2006, there were 240 incidents, of which, eight were classified as anti-Semitic. Figures for 2008 are due for publication shortly.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of an attack on Holocaust survivors in Ebensee, Austria on 9 May 2009; and if he will make a statement. 
Chris Bryant: I am aware of reports of the incident in Ebensee in Austria on 9 May 2009, in which several youths were alleged to have shouted Nazi slogans and fired plastic bullets at visitors to a memorial service for Holocaust victims. Five youths aged between 14 and 16 were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Their cases are being processed by public prosecutors. We continue to monitor these issues and wholly deprecate all anti-Semitic attacks.
Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of India on the likely effect of the planned Tipaimukh Dam on the Bangladeshi environment. 
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many financial contractors and consultants were engaged by his Departments Finance Directorate in the financial year 2007-08; in what capacity each was retained; and what the cost to his Department of their services was. 
David Miliband: A total of £4.38 million was spent by Finance Directorate on contractors and consultants in the financial year 2007-08. However, as Finance Directorate engages a wide range of consultants for different periods and varying tasks (including management and IT), providing a breakdown of numbers and capacity of consultants/contractors can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures govern the receipt by his Departments envoys of funding for their activities from (a) non-governmental agencies and (b) foreign governments. 
Chris Bryant: We have a service level agreement for non-governmental agencies to recover the costs incurred for services we provide overseas. This is based on a consistent charging framework across all posts. For foreign governments, we have a memorandum of understanding to recover platform costs (accommodation and security) and this is done through quarterly invoices.
If a project is being co-funded, the implementer of the project will invoice each of the funding agencies for the amount that has been agreed. As a check and balance to ensure implementers do not try to bid to different agencies as well as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for money for the same activities, we specifically ask during the concept and preparation of full bid phase whether
funding for this project has been sought from other donors, private institutions or co-funding with the host government.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|