| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Crime: Mental Health Act
Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many successful prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the past 10 years against individuals for crimes committed while detained or sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983.[HL8041]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Data on the number of prosecutions for crimes committed while detained or sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 is not centrally held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform.
Information for Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Office and that for Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland Office.
Crime: Rape
Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the answer by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 19 October (HL Deb, col. 868), whether cases of alleged rape are recorded on the basis of uncorroborated evidence of the complainant that they were subject to a sexual act without having given consent.[HL7959]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The recording of crime is governed by the National Crime Recording Standard which states:
“All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties and whether crime related or not, will result in the registration of an incident report by the police. Following the initial registration, an incident will be recorded as a crime (notifiable offence) if, on the balance of probability: (a) the circumstances, as reported, amount to a crime defined by law (the police will determine this, based on their knowledge of the law and counting rules), and (b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary”.
Once recorded, a crime would remain recorded unless there was additional verifiable information to disprove that a crime had occurred. Specifically for offences of rape, if someone reports having been raped and the circumstances as reported amount to an offence of rape as defined by law but the alleged offender insists that she or he consented, a crime of rape will be recorded.
8 Nov 2006 : Column WA181
Defra: Budget
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 October (HL Deb, col. 9), whether other sections of service have also been affected by “a switch of funding” within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.[HL8096]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Other sections of Defra service have been affected by switches of funding between budget categories. Like all large organisations, Defra faces new financial pressures each year which require us constantly to review and adjust our spending plans. We conducted a rigorous review of financial allocations during the summer of 2006 which included detailed discussions with our agencies and other external bodies to agree where spending might best be reduced. This review was comprehensive in nature and has ensured that Defra's funding for the current year is placed where it can have the greatest impact. Switches of funding between budget categories result where the review identifies that priorities are best served by transferring allocation between them and estimate and budgetary rules allow.
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 October—Official Report, col. 9—on Natural England, what cuts in the resource area were made in terms of the amount of money involved and the projects affected.[HL8097]
Lord Rooker: We are working with Natural England to ensure that the impacts on key areas are minimised. David Miliband has advised the chair of Natural England of the department’s priorities— for example, to minimise impact on delivery of the SSSI and farmland birds PSA targets. It is the responsibility of Natural England’s board to ensure that the organisation fulfils the aims and objectives set by the Secretary of State, including the efficient and effective use of its staff and resources. Natural England chooses how best to deploy its available resources to those ends. My department is not involved in setting budgets for individual projects.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 October (HL Deb, cols. 5—6), whether the budgets for flood defences will not be cut in view of the evidence from the Environment Agency that the reduction of £23.7 million in its budget would increase the risk of flooding.[HL8104]
Lord Rooker: The capital budget, which delivers improved flood defences, has not been cut and we believe that the programme to deliver schemes should be unaffected.
8 Nov 2006 : Column WA182
We remain on course to meet our spending review 2004 target of better protecting 100,000 households in the period 2005-08.
The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the answer by the Lord Rooker on 30 October—Official Report, col. 6—on Natural England, to which budget category the remaining £7 million of the total of £200 million has been allocated.[HL8105]
Lord Rooker: The pressures facing Defra have always been described as being more than £200 million.
In addition to those I identified to the House on 30 October are a range of other pressures, with varying probabilities that they will impact on Defra in 2006-07. These are part of the normal in-year monitoring of budgets that Defra has and continues to successfully manage against the estimate and budgetary controls. Given the uncertainty of the scope and likelihood of these other pressures actually crystallising, it would not be appropriate for me to provide details other than that these are current pressures in 2006-07.
Energy: Carbon Offsetting
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): An initial assessment of departmental aviation emissions was carried out using air travel data from 2005-06 and the conversion factors published in Defra's Guidelines for Company Reporting on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. These factors are currently 0.11 kg CO2 per passenger kilometre for long-haul travel, and 0.15kg CO2 per passenger kilometre for short-haul. For the purposes of the government carbon offsetting fund, a multiplier of x2 has been applied to the estimated totals to take into account the additional climate impact of non-CO2 emissions at altitude.
To apply an offsetting cost figure to departments, the initial assessment emissions totals were multiplied by £10. This is based upon the price agreed per tonne CO2 for the offsetting of the UK's G8 presidency.
The actual cost per tonne to be paid will depend on the conclusion of the offsetting fund procurement process, due at the start of December. The initial assessment emissions figures will be updated using actual departmental air travel data for the opening year of the scheme, 2006-07. Final calculations of CO2 tonnage and associated offsetting costs will be carried out in April 2007.
8 Nov 2006 : Column WA183
Fishing: Lough Neagh
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass asked Her Majesty’s Government:
On how many days during the past six months one or more fisheries patrol boats were on duty on Lough Neagh; and what were the hours spent on patrol on the lough on each of those days.[HL8082]
Lord Rooker: In the past six months the Fisheries Conservancy Board has carried out 12 boat patrols on Lough Neagh. The hours for each patrol are as follows:
| Date | Hours |
Other boat patrols are carried out on Lough Neagh by various private water bailiffs. However, details of these patrols are not recorded by Government.
Floods: Risk Management
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total project value of the flood risk management schemes started in England in each of the years 2002—03; 2003—04 and 2004—05, and projected for 2005—06 and 2006—07.[HL8139]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The Environment Agency (EA) is the principal operating authority with responsibility for flood risk in England, and is primarily funded through Defra grant in aid. For information on the amount of Defra funding to the EA for flood risk management from 2002-03 to 2005-06 I refer the noble Baroness to the Answer given in the other place, Official Report of 9 Oct 2006 at col. 200W.
Gulf War Illnesses
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of the vaccines interactions research programme at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories, Porton Down.[HL8032]
8 Nov 2006 : Column WA184
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): I refer my noble friend to the Answer I gave on 22 June 2006 (Official Report, col. WA 99).
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8), for how long possible adverse effects on the health of staff at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories, Porton Down, reported to have received the combination of vaccines and tablets administered to United Kingdom forces deployed to the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, will be monitored.[HL8033]
Lord Drayson: The study of sick absence in multi-vaccinated staff at DSTL Porton Down, which examined records covering periods of employment from two to 38 years, was completed in 2001. The study examined vaccinations only. The vaccines administered were those required by the staff in the course of their duties. These included anti-biological warfare and health and hygiene vaccinations which, while not the same regimens as used at the time of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, were considered to provide a comparison that was relevant to our consideration of the possible health effects of the vaccination programme for veterans of that conflict.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Drayson on 9 October (WA 47), whether they have made an assessment of the analysis published in June 2004 of atmospheric plume studies by the Accountability Office of the Government of the United States; and, if so, whether they have revised their conclusions about the number of British troops exposed to the fall-out of the demolition at Khamisiyah.[HL8055]
Lord Drayson: The Ministry of Defence paper Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah in March 1991 and implications for UK personnel, published in January 2005, took full account of the United States Government Accountability (formerly General Accounting) Office June 2004 review. This followed an assessment by Ministry of Defence experts. A copy, of the paper is available in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence website at www.mod.uk.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8) on Gulf War illness, for how long the studies referred to lasted; and whether the marmosets were exposed to the same range of vaccines and insults, such as uncontrolled spraying or organophosphate pesticides, DEET, low-level sarin, oil well fire residues and depleted uranium, as service personnel; and [HL8056]
8 Nov 2006 : Column WA185
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8) on Gulf War illness, whether they will take steps to ensure that future studies into illnesses of veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War take into account to the fullest extent possible factors or combinations of factors to which service personnel were subject.[HL8057]
Lord Drayson: The monitoring period of the marmoset study was 18 months. This represents some 11 per cent of the animals’ expected lifespan and was considered an appropriate period in relation to the timescale for the emergence of ill-health among veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. As my noble friend Lord Bach indicated in a Written Answer on 18 November 2003 (Official Report, col. WA 280), the range of vaccines used represented the “worst case” scenario. Environmental and other conditions to which some individuals may have been exposed during the 1990-91 Gulf conflict were not part of the vaccines interactions research programme. The possible adverse health effects of other potential exposures are either already well understood or have been the subject of other research programmes. The wider evidence currently available makes clear that the ill health reported among Gulf veterans also affects individuals who have not experienced such other exposures.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67-8) and the Written Statement by the Lord Drayson on 19 October (WS 87-8), whether the Written Answer was drawn to the attention of those who conducted the studies referred to in the Written Statement.[HL8058]
Lord Drayson: I refer my noble friend to the Answer given to him on 17 November 2003 (Official Report, col. WA 255-6).
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any assessment of the conclusions of studies conducted in France that the whooping cough vaccine, used as an adjuvant to the anthrax vaccine and administered to United Kingdom troops in the 1990-91 Gulf conflict, was not suitable for adults; and of its health effects on the troops involved.[HL8059]
Lord Drayson: The Ministry of Defence is aware of a paper published in 2002 by Dr J N Tournier and colleagues: Gulf War Syndrome: could it be triggered by biological warfare vaccines using pertussis as an adjuvant?. The paper presents a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated finding and we are aware of no work to prove/disprove the hypothesis. The department's vaccines interaction research using marmosets found no evidence of such an effect.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |