House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 3 Dec 2001 (pt 25)

Animal Health Research

Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the future of the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh. [20178]

Clare Short: My Department has contracted the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the university of Edinburgh to manage our animal health research programme.

We have no responsibility for the future of the centre.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Correspondence

Mr. Burns: To ask the President of the Council (1) how many letters he received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July; [18568]

(2) how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18588]

3 Dec 2001 : Column: 91W

Mr. Robin Cook: I received 21 letters from hon. and right hon. Members during this period.

Of the total replied to, the information requested is as follows:

(a) 18 (86 per cent.)

(b) 1 (4 per cent.)

(c) 2 (10 per cent.)

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Correspondence

Mr. Burns: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18592]

Mr. Leslie: Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament, received by agency chief executives and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering the year 2000 was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 325W.

Within the period 20 June and 20 July 2001 the Cabinet Office received 54 letters from hon. and right hon. Members. Out of these, 20 letters were transferred to other Government Departments or required no response. Of the remaining 34 letters left for the Cabinet Office to reply, (a) 27 (80 per cent.) were replied to within the 15 working day target, (b) a further five (94 per cent.) letters were replied to within 20 working days and (c) the remaining two (100 per cent.) letters were replied to within 30 working days. For (d) and (e) the Cabinet Office have a 100 per cent. success rate as all letters were replied to within 30 working days.

Information on the volume of other correspondence, including letters from members of the public was published as part of the six service standards for central Government. The report, covering the financial year 2000, is referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 454–56W, and a copy is available in the Libraries of the House. These types of correspondence are not collected in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Burns: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18574]

Mr. Leslie: Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July the Cabinet Office received 54 letters from right hon. and hon. Members: to the Department replied to 80 per cent. within the 15 working day target.

3 Dec 2001 : Column: 92W

Islamic Society of Britain

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what inquiries he made about the credentials, impartiality and political record of the Islamic Society of Britain before signing its Pledge to Muslims on religious tolerance. [14843]

Mr. Leslie: Officials made appropriate inquiries before the Government signed the pledge on religious tolerance.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will state what steps were taken by the Cabinet Secretary to check the credentials, impartiality and political record of the Islamic Society of Britain before signing its Pledge to Muslims on religious tolerance; [14781]

Mr. Leslie: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 November 2001, Official Report, columns 1056–57W.

Unallocated Funds

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit (a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19435]

Mr. Leslie: The Cabinet Office departmental annual report for 2001 (Cm 5119) contains the Cabinet Office Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in Table 6 on page 87. Draw-down of the DUP was reported to Parliament in June 2001 in the Cabinet Office Summer Supplementary Estimate (Cm 5215).

Outturn against the six month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

SCOTLAND

Correspondence

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters her Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18569]

Mrs. Liddell: Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001, Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July, the volume of correspondence and percentage of replies within the set target was: nine letters and 66.67 per cent. on target.

3 Dec 2001 : Column: 93W

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18597]

Mrs. Liddell: The information is as follows:

(a) 103 letters or 83.7 per cent. replied to in under 15 working days;

(b) 112 letters or 91 per cent. replied to in under 20 working days;

(c) 122 letters or 99.2 per cent. replied to in under 30 working days;

(d) 122 letters or 99.2 per cent. replied to in under 40 working days; and

(e) one letter or 0.8 per cent. replied to in over 40 working days.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Scotland Office were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [20009]

Mrs. Liddell: Approximately 25 per cent. in each of the Sessions December 2000-May 2001; November 1999-November 2000; and November 1998-November 1999.

West Coast Main Line

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Railtrack, since 5 October, concerning the timing of upgrades to the west coast main line. [19984]

Mrs. Liddell: I hope to meet with Railtrack senior management shortly to discuss a range of matters.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Genetically Modified Fish

Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the views expressed by the Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, on 7 March 2000, in relation to genetic modification of aquatic species and the safety of genetically modified organisms. [6639]

Mr. Meacher: The views of the Director General on genetically modified organisms are expressed in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report on the State of the World's Fisheries published in 2000. The Director General's statement says:

"We have no problem with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as long as they are proved to be safe to human beings and have no negative impact on the environment. That is a very clear position."

In assessing this statement I agree that safety for human health and the environment is paramount. This is the rationale behind the European Regulatory regime, which prohibits releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Directive 90/220 requires that anyone wanting to release genetically modified organisms in any country in the EU must have prior approval subject to a detailed risk assessment.

3 Dec 2001 : Column: 94W

However this does not mean that there are no problems with the marketing and use of GMOs. In addition to the safety aspects, there are other issues of concern including public acceptance, ethics, liability and socio-economic impacts.

In relation to genetic modification of aquatic species, such as fish, I refer to my recent statements on this topic on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 77W and on 20 November 2001, Official Report, column 198W.

Next Section

Index

Home Page