Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the inquiries that they pursue in the event of outbreaks of non-United Kingdom animal diseases include seeking to recover costs from any person who is deemed to be responsible. [HL3837]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Yes. We always carry out investigations into the reasons behind outbreaks of exotic notifiable disease (that is, those not endemic to the United Kingdom). Where there is evidence of non-compliance with animal health legislation, the appropriate authority will consider whether legal proceedings should be instigated and this includes the recovery of costs. Where there is a failure to act in a reasonable manner to control disease, my department will also seek to recover its disease control costs.
My department is working with the livestock industry on how the roles, responsibilities and costs of providing animal health and welfare could be balanced better. The scope of the work includes the strengthening of the available steps where there are failures in responsibility.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they recognise the Albanian royal family and support the efforts they are making towards national reconstruction. [HL3900]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): The UK welcomes any efforts that help the development of Albania. Leka Zogu, the son of the former King of Albania Ahmet Zogu (King Zog), had some involvement with the Legality Movement and National Movement for Development, both political parties, following his return from exile in 2002. In February 2006, he announced his withdrawal from political life.
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the need for a baseline number of state vets formerly called the State Veterinary Service, now renamed Animal Health. [HL3905]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Animal Health's resources and work demands are reviewed regularly and the number of directly employed vets will vary from time to time. However, it is accepted that Animal Health's in-house veterinary capability is core to its business. In the last year, Animal Health has converted some 70 temporary veterinary positions into permanent posts, to bring the current veterinary staff complement to almost 300 full-time equivalents. A set baseline number for the agency may not be helpful at this time, given that the responsibilities of the agency will continue to change.
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they propose to procure aircraft such as the A400M without a full defensive aids suite fit.[HL3822]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): We continuously review our requirements for defensive aid suites (DAS), taking into account operational roles, threat assessments, the technology available and industrial capacity. This includes keeping under review the scale of DAS procurement for the A400M aircraft, all of which will be fitted for DAS.
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the conditioning of detainees by hooding, ordering them into a stress position and deprivation of sleep to sustain the impact of detention prior to interrogation, as described at the recent court martial of members of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and others, is in accordance with the requirements of the Geneva Convention; and, if so, whether it is allowed explicitly or implicitly by those conventions. [HL3560]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The recently concluded court martial of Payne and others lasted for 94 days. Evidence was heard from many witnesses, a number of whom referred to conditioning for interrogation, hooding, stress positions and sleep deprivation. Some evidence was heard in camera. The use of hooding, stress positions or sleep deprivation for conditioning prior to interrogation is unlawful as contrary to the Geneva Conventions.
These were issues of fact and law that would properly fall to be argued and determined as necessary in the court martial proceedings. In his summing up to the panel in the court martial on 12 March 2007, the Judge Advocate, Mr Justice McKinnon, said: It is not necessary to discuss the lawfulness of hooding and stress positions save to this extent: stress positions are generally accepted to be unlawful as contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the laws of armed conflict. He continued: It is common ground that hooding was acceptable at the material time for good security reasons but questions of its general acceptability would or might arise if it was used for long periods in the heat of Iraq or if it was used for the purposes of sensory deprivation. This case does not stand or fall on a consideration of hooding. The real issue relates to stress positions.
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in light of the report by the National Emergency Epidemiology Group into the possible source of the outbreak of avian influenza, they will introduce a requirement for greater biosecurity around meat processing plants that deal in infected meat. [HL3836]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The Governments policy is to promote the highest possible levels of biosecurity and vigilance to prevent the risk of disease occurring. This applies to all elements of food production.
In the event of an outbreak of avian influenza, animal disease controls are put in place to prevent the spread of the infection to birds and to prevent potentially infected poultry meat from entering the food chain. This is to avoid the risk that such meat might present an animal health risk of spreading the disease. The Food Standard Agencys advice is that avian influenza does not pose a food safety risk to the United Kingdom consumer. Processing plants are permitted to obtain meat from areas outside animal disease control zones. Clear requirements for the handling and disposal of waste in meat processing plants are set out in existing hygiene and animal by-product legislation and are enforced by the Meat Hygiene Service and local authorities.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 23 May dismissing the Government's appeal against the cancellation by the Divisional Court of two Orders in Council on the right of abode of the Chagossian people in their homeland, they propose to petition the House of Lords for leave to appeal; and whether they accept the decisions of the courts to date. [HL3981]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will consider the 23 May judgment of the Court of Appeal carefully and has in this regard asked officials for further advice. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reserves the right to petition the House of Lords to grant permission to appeal, as she is entitled to do within one month. The Government's policy in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory therefore remains the subject of possible ongoing legal proceedings and it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take measures to facilitate the return of the Chagos islanders; and create a trust fund to help to revive the economy of the Chagos Islands. [HL3982]
Lord Triesman: My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will consider the 23 May judgment of the Court of Appeal carefully and has in this regard asked officials for further advice. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary reserves the right to petition the House of Lords to grant permission to appeal, as she is entitled to do within one month. The Government's policy in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territory therefore remains the subject of possible ongoing legal proceedings and it would be inappropriate to comment further.
Lord De Mauley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent reports of people and organisations buying carbon credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions; and [HL3756]
What action they are taking in response to recent reports of failings in the new markets for carbon credits and other greenhouse gases; and [HL3757]
What is their response to recent reports of an inadequacy of procedures for verification of the real value in carbon credits; and [HL3758]
What is their response to recent reports of wide variations in the price per tonne of carbon dioxide offsets; and [HL3759]
What is the official procedure for organisations wishing to set up in business selling carbon offsetting mechanisms; and how this sector is regulated. [HL3760]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The Government support offsetting as part of a hierarchy of actions, the most important being to reduce emissions. We acknowledge that carbon offsetting is not a cure for climate change, but it can help to raise awareness and to reduce the impact of our actions.
The Government support the use of offsets generated by robust and verifiable mechanisms bound by international regulation. The Government's own offsetting schemes use the clean development mechanism (CDM), which can also be accessed by consumers through a variety of providers. We have also proposed that the CDM and other regulatory market offset mechanisms form the core of Defra's voluntary code of best practice for the provision of offsetting to UK customers.
The CDM is supervised by an executive board, established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This is responsible for full oversight and the release of certified emission reductions (CERs) to projects that have met the requirements of the CDM process. That process is multi-stage, employing stringent verification procedures to ensure the real value of the emission reductions generated.
The carbon market is an essential part of the package to tackle climate change globally and is a crucial mechanism to help to drive the investment needed to reduce emissions cost-effectively. The market is growing rapidly and faces development issues, as any emerging market does. For example, there is a need for more investment, via the carbon market, in Africa. At the second meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP2) in Nairobi, there was a particular focus on enabling wider uptake of CDM projectsa Nairobi framework was agreed to facilitate investment in Africa. The UK, as the major focus of the carbon market, wants to work to connect market experts here with project developers in Africa as a contribution to this work.
COP/MOP2 also encouraged further initiatives to help to build capacity to carry out projects and agreed measures aimed, for instance, at aiding easier development of small-scale CDM projects. We are also co-operating with colleagues in other countries to consider how we might link the EU-ETS, which is currently at the heart of the carbon market, to other emerging schemes and so work towards a truly global market for carbon.
There is currently no regulation of businesses that sell carbon offsetting mechanisms. However, on 18 January, Defra launched a consultation on a voluntary code of best practice for the provision of carbon offsetting to customers. The consultation closed on 13 April 2007 and the code of best practice is expected to be operational by the end of the year.
The purpose of establishing a code is to ensure consumer confidence in an emerging market and continued growth of that market through that confidence. The code will be voluntary and offset providers can choose whether to seek accreditation for all, or some, of their offsetting products.
The code proposes that offset providers supply consumers with clear information and transparent prices. It is not for the Government to dictate prices for CO2 offsets, but there is a market price for carbon, established by the EU-ETS, which is available to the public as a point of reference.
Defra plans to support the standard by providing guidance to consumers on offsetting, which will also help consumers to make informed decisions about their actions.
Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to re-examine the range of climate models used by the Hadley Centre for assessing UKCIP02 options to include models from other European Union countries; and, if so, which other models will be examined. [HL3615]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): The UKCIP02 national climate scenarios, published in 2002, were based on projections of future climate change using the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model. There are no plans to re-examine the range of climate models used by the Met Office for assessing UKCIP02. However, the next set of scenarios, UKCIP08, due to be published in 2008, will be based on projections from the Met Office model, augmented by results from other models around the world, including Europe.
Other models that will be used are:
FranceISPL model at Institut Pierre Simon LaplaceRussiaINM-CM3.0 model at Institute for Numerical MathematicsUSAUIUC model at University of IllinoisCCSM3.0 model at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)JapanMIROC-medres medium-resolution model at Center for Climate System Research (University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (JAMSTEC) MRI-CGCM2.3.2 model at Meteorological Research UnitCanadaCGCM3.1 T63 model at Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and AnalysisAustraliaCSIRO-MK3.0 model at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).There is potential also to include:GermanyMPI ECHAM5Max Planck InstituteUSAGFDL AM-2 model at Geophysical Fluid Dynamics LaboratoryNCAR PCMNational Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) parallel climate modelNASA GISSGoddard Institute for Space StudiesJapanMIROC-hires high-resolution model at Center for Climate System Research (University of Tokyo), National Institute for Environmental Studies, and Frontier Research Center for Global Change (JAMSTEC).Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 16 April (WA 11), on what basis they maintain that the United Kingdom's contribution to common agricultural policy (CAP) spending cannot be identified, in light of the Answer by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 25 November 1999 (Official Report, col. 748) and the Written Answer by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 January 2001 (Official Report, col. 453W); and what are (a) the present annual cost of the CAP to (i) consumers, and (ii) taxpayers; and (b) total expenditure on United Kingdom agriculture by (i) the Government, and (ii) the European Union in the latest year for which figures are available. [HL3804]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The United Kingdom makes its contributions to the EC budget as a whole and not to individual spending programmes within it. There is not therefore a specific United Kingdom contribution to common agricultural policy spending. However, as has been done in the past, we can provide notional estimates.
We can estimate the UK consumer cost of the CAP by comparing the difference between UK and world prices for agricultural products and applying that difference to the volume of UK consumption. Our latest provisional estimate for 2005 is a consumer cost of approximately £3.5 billion. Based on information contained in EC amending budget No. 6/2006, the notional United Kingdom taxpayer contribution to common agricultural spending in 2006 is £4.2 billion.
Total expenditure on United Kingdom agriculture in 2006-07 from the EC budget was £2.9 billion, and can be divided into the following categories:
Market support£366 millionDirect aids£2.4 billion Rural development£163 million.On top of that, approximately £763 million was spent on English agriculture by the Government.
Responsibility for domestic agricultural spending is a devolved matter and advice on such expenditure needs to be sought from each of the devolved Administrations.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans there are for a national definition for recording crimes against business, to be adopted by all police forces in England and Wales. [HL3811]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): There are no plans to set a national definition of business crime.
Crimes against business are already recorded in crime statistics but are often grouped together with other, unrelated crimes. The aim is to measure these with consistency and accuracy. Crimes such as robbery of business property, theft from a shop, theft by an employee and different types of fraud are already counted separately in recorded crime statistics and work will continue to expand the range of these. Once a definition of commercial burglary has been agreed during 2007-08, this can be adopted by all police forces in their crime recording systems and in returns to the Home Office. The new commercial burglary definition will then be piloted in 2008-09 as part of the Home Office annual data requirement.
Lord Harris of Haringey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to the business crime forums, which are emerging in some regions in England and Wales, and to the business crime contacts in regional government offices, in tackling crimes against business.[HL3813]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: A key aspect of regional business crime and fraud forums is that they are locally driven by those in the business community who wish to have them and are willing to support them. Government support is given through advice and information from the Home Office and through government regional offices.
Central Home Office funding for regional work on tackling crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour is now channelled through the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF), a joint fund with Communities and Local Government (CLG). Decisions about how this funding is spent are therefore devolved to the local area through the local area agreement process.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |