| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
4 July 2006 : Column WA29
Written Answers
Tuesday 4 July 2006
Arms Trade
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action the European Union has already taken, or is proposing to take, to combat the worldwide proliferation of small arms and light weapons; and what are the current European Union priorities in this area.[HL6459]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): In December 2005 the European Council adopted a strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition. The EU's priorities include agreeing common international guidelines for SALW transfer controls, stronger regulation of brokering activities, stricter stockpile management and the destruction of surplus SALW. Since 2003, the EU has allocated €88 million for action undertaken by affected countries in Africa, south-east Asia and south-eastern Europe to deal with the excessive and destabilising accumulation of small arms and light weapons. This amount is in addition to member states' contributions and is drawn from the non-proliferation project line of the common foreign and security policy budget.
Assets Recovery Agency
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the Northern Ireland section of the Assets Recovery Agency has recovered since its creation; and how much it has cost to run during the same period.[HL6464]
Lord Rooker: The Northern Ireland office of the Assets Recovery Agency has realised the following amounts since its creation.
| 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | |
The Northern Ireland office's actual expenditure for the same period was:
| 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-6 | |
Disruption is defined as: a) the freezing of assets through a restraint order, freezing order, Mareva injunction1 or interim receiving order; or b) where freezing has not taken place, either i) making of a confiscation or recovery order, or ii) voluntary settlement/payment, where no order has been made, or iii) undertakings given not to deal with assets; or c) the issue of a tax assessment.
4 July 2006 : Column WA30
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the value of illegal assets seized by the Assets Recovery Agency in (a) England, and (b) Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; what this represents as a per capita amount in each case; and what proportion of recovered assets they have permitted the police to retain within the agencies in each of these years.[HL6584]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The information requested on assets recovered by the Assets Recovery Agency year on year since its inception in March 2003 is set out in the table. The agency has no powers to allow police forces to retain a proportion of recovered assets. Under an incentive scheme introduced by the Government in 2004-05, police forces received 33 per cent of total assets recovered that year above £40 million, rising to 50 per cent in 2005-06. A total of £39 million in incentive payments has been distributed to police forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland over two years. Under a new incentive scheme which came into effect on April 1 this year, police and other agencies involved in asset recovery will get back 50 per cent of all receipts from recovered criminal assets.
Bangladesh: United Kingdom High Commissioner
Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the inquiries by the Government of Bangladesh into the attack on the United Kingdom high commissioner in 2004 were satisfactory; and what is the latest information they have received from the Government of Bangladesh in this case.[HL6563]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): Since the grenade attack in Sylhet in May 2004 in which the high commissioner was injured, we have taken every available opportunity to stress to the Government of Bangladesh the importance of bringing the perpetrators to justice, not least for the relatives of those who tragically died. It is vital for the Government of Bangladesh to conclude credible investigations into this and other attacks as soon as possible. Regrettably, despite the high profile of the cases and consistent lobbying by the UK, EU and others in the international
4 July 2006 : Column WA31
Most recently, the high commissioner issued a public statement on 21 May on this subject which is available on the website of our high commission in Dhaka at www.britishhighcominission.gov.uk/servlet/Front? pagename==OpenMarket/Xcelerate/Show Page&= Page &cid= 1101397177004&a=KArticle&aid=1145898689339.
Our high commission in Dhaka continues to raise this and other unresolved cases with the Government of Bangladesh at a senior level and on a regular basis.
Child Protection: Teachers
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many teachers have been (a) convicted, or (b) cautioned for child pornography or sexual abuse in (i) England, and (ii) Northern Ireland over the past five years.[HL6515]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Adonis): The Department for Education and Skills does not record the numbers of teachers cautioned or convicted for child pornography or sexual abuse. The Home Office has data relating to the total number of individuals cautioned or convicted, though these are not broken down by profession.
Commission for Equality and Human Rights
Lord Ouseley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 20 June (WA 69), how government frameworks to ensure transparency in the procurement process are scrutinised; and how members of the public can access the results of such scrutiny and audit reports.[HL6545]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Framework agreements are established in compliance with all applicable EC and UK law. This ensures that open competitions are used when selecting suppliers who are able to offer best value for money. The responsibility for procurement decisions lies with departments, which have to lay an annual report before Parliament and are subject to review by the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee. They are also subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which allows members of the public to ask questions about their operations.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Coastal Access
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the National Audit Office report on The Right of Access to Open Countryside, why the board of the Countryside Agency was asked to approve options for improving coastal access while the in-depth investigation of the four study areas still lacked costings; and [HL6672]
4 July 2006 : Column WA32
Why the board of the Countryside Agency was asked to approve options for improving coastal access when only one of the seven parts of the Coastal Access Project Group's work programme was complete.[HL6673]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The Countryside Agency's (CA) board paper, which was discussed at its meeting on 25 May, summarised the results of the initial evidence, fact-finding and research work which had been undertaken to date by the CA, along with its Natural England partners: English Nature and the Rural Development Service. The board was asked to agree some initial conclusions about the best way to improve access to the English coast, subject to the completion of further work.
The Natural England partnership's final advice to Defra will include details of all the elements of the partnership's work programme and the costs of possible options. The board will look again at the options in the light of all the information available before that advice is submitted to Defra.
DNA: Supply of Pathogenic Sequences
Lord Jopling asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to ensure that suppliers of oligonucleotides are required to screen and report orders for pathogenic DNA sequences. [HL6484]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): There are no specific regulations that govern the sale, supply, or purchase of DNA sequences. The potential chemical hazards associated with the sequence itself would be covered by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended). If DNA sequences were to be used to create a biological agent, the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (as amended) are likely to apply. These provide for a high level of protection for human health and the environment (including animal and plant health). In addition, the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998 (SAPO), administered by Defra, regulates possession of nucleic acid derived from any animal pathogen specified under SAPO. In all cases the relevant containment and operating requirements laid down by HSE/Defra would need to be met.
Provisions in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 place an obligation on managers of laboratories and other premises holding specified pathogens or toxins to notify the authorities and to comply with the security requirements which the police may impose.
There is a wide range of legitimate uses to which DNA sequences may be put and the imposition of onerous controls could discourage valuable scientific research and industry use. The Government do not believe that it is necessary to require suppliers of DNA sequences to be licensed or for them to screen customers or check the intended use of the sequences. But we will continue to monitor the situation as the relevant technologies develop.
4 July 2006 : Column WA33
Drugs: Methamphetamine
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had with authorities in the United States concerning the illegal drug methamphetamine; and whether they will introduce legislation to inhibit unlawful access to, and possession of, the component elements required to manufacture this drug.[HL6582]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), the independent expert body that advises Government on drug misuse issues, has recently recommended that the Government reclassify methamphetamine from a class B drug to a class A drug. During its deliberations the council closely considered the international experience, including that of the USA. Prior to making the recommendation, the ACMD monitored and considered related articles on the methamphetamine situation in the United States and elsewhere. The ACMD has also been in close liaison with agencies including ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) and Her Majesties Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which have direct links with equivalent authorities in the United States in relation to methylamphetamine.
The ACMD, in its report on methamphetamine published in November 2005, recommended that methamphetamine precursors should be controlled by being added to the European precursor legislation. The ACMD further recommended the removal of the exemption on ephedrine tablets under the European precursor legislation. The Home Office has accepted these recommendations in full and work is currently under way in taking them forward.
Energy: Nuclear
Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the views of other European Union member states on the need to develop new generation nuclear power plants; and what was the conclusion of any such assessment.[HL6451]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The Government have carried out no specific assessment on the need for other European Union (EU) member states to develop new nuclear power plants. However, we are aware of the energy policies of other member states, including their views on new nuclear build, through our regular direct contacts at EU level and bilateral meetings, through the regular reporting of our embassies to central Government and through other information co-ordinated by the European Commission. Of course, each member state has different energy requirements, dependent on the natural resources available to them and the forms of energy they choose to use.
4 July 2006 : Column WA34
EU: Hazardous Waste Directive
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Sainsbury of Turville on 19 June (WA 57), whether the regulatory impact assessment on the hazardous waste directive will include an assessment of the comparative costs to British industry of (a) implementing the directive; and (b) delaying implementation and thus impeding the free movement of goods across the European Union.[HL6646]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Copies of the DTI's final regulatory impact assessment on the restriction of hazardous substances directive were submitted to the Library of the House on 25 May this year. The annualised costs to UK industry have been estimated to be between £91 million and £170 million over the next 10 years. Delaying implementation would mean that equipment placed on the UK market would not have incurred their proportion of these costs but any equipment exported to other EU member states would have had to comply to be lawfully placed on the market in those countries. It would not have been economically feasible for companies placing goods on the EU market to run two manufacturing lines.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |