| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Pesticide Residues in Fruit
Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What plans the Department of Health has to publish the results of the monitoring programme for pesticide residues in fruit supplied to the National School Fruit Scheme.[HL4396]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The first set of results has been published on the website of the Pesticide Residues Committee and a copy has been placed in the Library. We have been advised by the Food Standards Agency and the Pesticides Safety Directorate that none of the residues found would give rise to concern for consumer health generally and specifically for children's health. Further results will be published at regular intervals.
Museums and Galleries: Public Appointments
Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have any plans to resurrect their proposals (contained in last Session's Culture and Recreation Bill (HL)) for regulating the trustees of the great national museums.[HL4226]
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): Our aim in the Bill was to streamline aspects of the public appointment process.
We are continuing to look at ways to improve the process of public appointments to museums and galleries and have already streamlined the existing administrative processes.
We will continue to look for legislative opportunities to achieve further improvements to the process in consultation with the chairmen of the national museums and galleries.
Society Lotteries
Lord Mancroft asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why they have decided to restrict the frequency of draws in society lotteries to "no greater than one a day" (paragraph 4.43 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's report A safe Bet for Success) when such a limit does not exist for the National Lottery, which currently has three draws each Saturday; and[HL4277]
What information or research data they have which shows that society lotteries with frequent draws encourage players to gamble to excess; and[HL4278]
What they consider to be "excessive" gambling, in monetary terms, in respect of (i) society lotteries, (ii) amusement-with-prizes and (iii) the National Lottery by individual players and by outlet; and[HL4279]
In relation to Sir Alan Budd's review (Cm 5207) (a) how many of the 300 submissions raised concerns
- about the frequency of draws in society lotteries; (b) from where Sir Alan Budd obtained the information contained in paragraphs 28.38 to 28.41 of his Report; (c) what information officials gave to Sir Alan Budd in connection with the frequency of draws in society lotteries; and (d) why officials withheld from Sir Alan Budd the results of society lotteries with frequent draws in the possession of the Home Office demonstrating that no excessive play took place; and[HL4280]
Whether they have calculated the potential loss to charities if draws in society lotteries are restricted to one a day; and, if not, whether they will now do so.[HL4281]
Baroness Blackstone: The Government's decision that the frequency of on-line draws for society lotteries should be restricted to one a day in any particular premises reflected the conclusions of the Gambling Review Body that without such a limit there would be opportunities for uncontrolled and excessive play carrying risks encouraging problem gambling.
The available research evidence is as set out in Chapter 17 of the review body's report. It is not specific to lotteries but relates generally to frequency of play and opportunities for re-staking.
Excessive gambling is not necessarily simply a question of the money which the gambler spends or even of the relationship of such expenditure to the gambler's income. It is a matter also of the gamblers' ability to control his or her gambling.
Four submissions last autumn to the Government about the report of the Gambling Review Body expressed concern about frequent draw lotteries. The review body was independent of government. The sources of evidence given to it were listed in its report. The Home Office did not give evidence about lotteries or other subjects. The only information about the results of society lotteries with frequent draws which was available to the Home Office was supplied by Interlotto. This information related to ticket sales and not to the extent of play by individual participants. It was open to Interlotto to provide this, or such other material as it wished, to the review body in response to the review body's general invitation to submit evidence.
We have made no estimate of the potential loss to charities from controlling the frequency of online lottery draws and do not think that this would serve a useful purpose. The Government have made clear in A safe bet for success that we are committed to the success of the charity lottery sector and we shall be introducing legislation very shortly to increase their maximum ticket sales, prizes and ticket prices.
Special Advisers
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are the pay bands for special advisers, indicating the minimum and maximum pay levels in
- each band, from the date of their introduction in 1998–99 and for the full financial years (a) 1999–2000; (b) 2000–01; and (c) 2001–02.[HL3425]
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): The minima and maxima of special advisers' pay bands are as follows:
| Year | Pay Band | Minima | Maxima |
| 1998–99 | A | £26,000 | £45,000 |
| B | £40,000 | £60,000 | |
| C | £54,000 | £76,056 | |
| (a) 1999–2000 | A | £26,728 | £46,260 |
| B | £41,120 | £61,680 | |
| C | £55,512 | £78,186 | |
| (b) 2000–01 | A | £27,503 | £47,602 |
| B | £42,312 | £63,469 | |
| C | £57,122 | £80,453 | |
| (c) 2001–02 | A | £28,328 | £49,030 |
| B | £43,581 | £65,373 | |
| C | £58,836 | £82,867 | |
| From June 2001* | 0 | Up to £34,000 | |
| 1 | £34,001 | £44,000 | |
| 2 | £44,001 | £56,000 | |
| 3 | £56,001 | £72,000 | |
| 3 Premium | £72,001 | £87,000 | |
| 4 | £75,001 | £90,000 | |
| Maximum | £125,000 |
*A new pay system for special advisers was introduced from June 2001 based on individual job evaluation.
The Earl of Northesk asked her Majesty's Government:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Section 4d of the Model Contract for Special Advisers makes it clear that special advisers are not entitled to overtime. Under the terms of the Civil Service Management Code the payment of bonuses is delegated to individual departments. Information on bonuses paid
The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: On 1 April 1999,
1 April 2000 and 1 April 2001 there were three special advisers outside the pay band structure. They were Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Keith Hellawell.
Lord Kilclooney asked Her Majesty's Government:
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): The size of the electorate in each of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland as published in the respective Register of Electors for the years 2001 and 1996 are as follows:
Whether special advisers are paid (a) overtime, or (b) bonus payments; and what was the amount of such payments in (i) 1998–99; (ii) 1999–2000; (iii) 2000–01; and (iv) 2001–02.[HL3429]
Which special advisers were outside the pay band structure in (a) 1999–2000; (b) 2000–01; and (c) 2001–02.[HL3430]
What is the size of the electorate in each of the 18 constituencies in Northern Ireland; and what it was in each of these constituencies five years ago.[HL4218]
2001 Constituency 1996
59,044 Belfast East 62,278
61,646 Belfast North 65,193
59,937 Belfast South 63,948
60,377 Belfast West 62,523
61,597 East Antrim 59,591
60,968 East Londonderry 59,625
67,561 Fermanagh & S Tyrone 65,547
71,835 Foyle 68,574
73,494 Lagan Valley 72,025
62,165 Mid-Ulster 59,814
73,369 Newry & Armagh 71,685
75,385 North Antrim 73,354
63,944 North Down 63,723
72,948 Strangford 70,288
71,316 South Antrim 70,931
74,555 South Down 70,742
73,471 Upper Bann 71,293
61,486 West Tyrone 59,064
1,205,097 Total 1,190,198
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page