| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Thursday, 21st November 1996.
Agriculture Council, 18th and 19th November
Lord Harlech asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 18th and 19th November.
Lord Lucas: My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 18 November, accompanied by my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. The Council formally adopted the legislative text giving effect to changes in the EU beef regime agreed in principle at the Council in October. Germany maintained its negative vote.
The Council had a first discussion of proposals for a system of identification and registration of bovine animals, together with a linked proposal on the labelling of beef and beef products. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food urged the Council to proceed quickly with a technical examination of the proposal on identification and registration so as to reach early conclusions and so facilitate the work on a computerised cattle traceability system already begun in the United Kingdom. He welcomed efforts to improve information about beef and beef products for consumers, but cautioned against placing heavy bureaucratic burdens on small operators. He also took the opportunity of this Council meeting to report on the progress made in the United Kingdom on BSE eradication and in particular in meeting the preconditions laid down in the June Florence Agreement.
The Council had general debates on proposals for amendments to EU support arrangements for durum wheat, and for a common organisation of the market in potatoes. On the latter, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicated the UK Government's readiness to support a genuinely lightweight EU regime. The Council also drew up a declaration urging progress on establishing a European Agency for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection.
On animal welfare issues, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food joined his German and Swedish colleagues in pressing the Commission to bring forward its review and proposals on battery cages for laying hens, and proposals on staging posts and vehicle standards for the protection of animals during transport. He also urged the Commission to ensure the proper implementation of Commission decision 96/239 regarding consignments of beef and beef products made from material not originating in the United Kingdom.
The Presidency and the Agriculture Commissioner reported to the Council on the conference on rural development which the Presidency had hosted in Cork
on 7-9th November. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food welcomed the impetus which the Cork conference conclusions would give to further thinking on rural development policy and the evolution of the common agricultural policy, especially in view of the need to adjust that policy to take account of international trade pressures and the prospect of EU enlargement.Prison Transfers
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, further to Baroness Blatch's Answer of 11th November (WA 84), they will list by categories the grounds on which 57 applications for prison transfers between England and Northern Ireland have been refused since 1st April 1994.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): The criteria under which transfer applications are considered were announced to Parliament on 23rd November 1992.
The 57 transfer applications refused since 1st April 1994 were refused on the following grounds:
- Less than six months left to serve in receiving jurisdiction before release: 6.
- Not ordinarily resident/no close family in receiving jurisdiction: 32.
- Not satisfied will not disrupt prison establishment/pose risk to security: 10.
- Substantial reduction in time to serve: 9.
Higher Education: Conditions of Employment
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are the contractual conditions of work requested of (a) full time and (b) foundation course lecturers in higher education, split between the faculties of (i) arts, humanities, social sciences and teacher education, and (ii) other faculties.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): This is a matter for individual universities and colleges.
Nursery Voucher Scheme
Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they hope to announce the first results of their evaluation of the nursery voucher scheme in the three pilot areas and whether they have invited or will
- invite the National Audit Office to assess whether the scheme is proving to be cost-effective.
Lord Henley: The department published a report on Phase 1 of the scheme on 13th November which includes a description of work undertaken jointly with the National Audit Office. The aims of the scheme are necessarily achievable only over time: cost effectiveness will be considered alongside the longer term monitoring and assessment described in chapter 11 of the report.
Public Health Laboratory Service
Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why they have included the Public Health Laboratory Service in their Prior Options Review in view of the fact that it was the subject of a thorough and detailed review less than 18 months ago, which led to a major reorganisation and rationalisation and improved financial efficiency.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): The Government's response to the efficiency scrutiny on public sector research establishments (Cm 2991), published in September 1995, announced that the Prior Options reviews process would be adapted and extended to include all public sector research establishments. These reviews will help the Government achieve the greatest possible benefit from the substantial resources devoted to these establishments. Each review addresses the actual and potential relationship of the establishment in question to any others in similar or related fields, highlighting the scope for more effective co-ordination and co-operation. Although the Public Health Laboratory Service was subject to a specific strategic review in 1994, the Prior Options review will build on that review and not duplicate it. The tranche of reviews which includes the Public Health Laboratory Service is due to report to Ministers at the end of this year.
Partnership for Peace: Cost
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How much has the Partnership for Peace so far cost (a) Her Majesty's Government; and (b) NATO.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): The Partnership for Peace takes the form of the involvement of partners in a wide range of programmes and activities organised by NATO agencies, and by the Allies as part of their bilateral programmes with partners. Information on the total cost to NATO, and to Her Majesty's Government, is not recorded, but has included some £15 million provided specifically for Partnership activities from common funded budgets since the launch of the Partnership in January 1994. The UK share of these NATO common funded costs has been some £2.6 million.
US Missile Tracking: Data Distribution
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether there is any established, or expected, agreement between the United States (US) and the United Kingdom, or between the US and West European Union, concerning the provision by the US of satellite-derived data; or if, as stated by Viscount Cranborne (19th May 1994, col. WA 17), this remains exclusively "a matter for the United States".
Earl Howe: Under the Code of Access to Government Information it is not our policy to disclose the information requested on the grounds that it would harm national security or defence or the conduct of international relations or affairs.
NATO: Counter-proliferation Planning
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether "the established machinery of the Alliance" is carrying forward the discussion of counter-proliferation requirements at an "accelerated" rate, as stated by Mr. David Omand, in NATO Review of September 1996, and if so accelerated, by how much, and to what purpose.
Earl Howe: The Alliance normally operates on a two-year force planning cycle. Rather than wait until the next cycle in 1998, Alliance Defence Ministers agreed in June 1996 to an accelerated plan of action to address the conclusions reached by the NATO Senior Defence Group on Proliferation. Accordingly, new or revised draft force goals will be submitted for agreement by the Defence Ministers of the Allies concerned in December 1996. This process will ensure that the capabilities identified can take their place alongside other Alliance priorities already established by the force planning process.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page