| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
25 July 2006 : Column WA241
Written Answers
Tuesday 25 July 2006
Animal Research: Primates
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether there are any legal impediments (a) to the imposition of a ban on imports to the United Kingdom of all primates, dead or alive; and (b) to the restriction of research using them to descendants of animals already resident in the United Kingdom. [HL6933]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): Any European Union (EU) or UK ban on the import of primates, dead or alive, not prohibited by the Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) would amount to a prima facie breach of World Trade Organisation rules. In order for a ban to be justified, it would have to be capable of falling within the scope of the permitted exceptions listed in Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Those most likely to apply are Article XX(a) (public morals), Article XX(b) (protection of health and life) and/or Article XX(g) (conservation of exhaustible natural resources). Further, any such restriction must also be compliant with the requirement that there is no unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination nor a disguised restriction on trade.
There are no animal health grounds for imposing a total ban on imports into the UK of all primates, dead or alive. A unilateral UK ban would not be in accordance with Community law, which provides for imports subject to compliance with animal health controls. The Government have no policy in favour of imposing restrictions on the import of non-CITES listed primates on the grounds of conservation.
In addition, any restrictions on imports to the UK from within the European Community would have to be justifiable within Community law and the requirement of free movement of goods. Any departure from an EU-wide position on trade with third countries could be held to be in breach of trade rules under Community law.
The restriction of research using primates to the descendants of animals already resident in the UK is not permissible under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which regulates the use of living animals in research and testing. This is because the 1986 Act gives the Secretary of State a discretion which can be used to authorise regulated procedures to be undertaken on primates which are sourced from overseas.
Section 10(3) of the 1986 Act provides that the conditions of a project licence issued under the Act shall, unless the Secretary of State for the Home Department considers that an exception is justified, include a condition to the effect that no non-human primates shall be used under the licence unless it has
25 July 2006 : Column WA242
Energy: Biomass
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Which of the recommendations made by the Biomass Task Force in October 2005 are to be accepted; what the timetable will be for implementing them; and what funding will be available. [HL6931]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): The majority of the 42 recommendations made by the biomass task force in October 2005 have been accepted fully or in principle. The remaining recommendations are being considered further, in some cases pending the outcome of ongoing reviews, such as the waste strategy review.
The Government have identified 65 actions to take forward the recommendations of the biomass task force; most of these actions should be implemented by April 2007. A number of actions will, by necessity, continue beyond that date, such as the five-year capital grant scheme for biomass boilers and CHP systems.
The majority of the measures proposed by the biomass task force require no additional funding. Among those actions that do, funding has been announced for the five-year capital grant scheme of £10 million to £15 million over the first two years. This funding will also support an additional round of the bio-energy infrastructure scheme. The level of funding for the continuation of support for the establishment of energy crops under the new rural development programme for England has yet to be finalised; it will be subject to EU and Government decisions on rural development funding.
Gangmasters
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether employment agencies are regarded as gangmasters when placing workers in agriculture and food processing industries; and, if so, whether a £250,000 registration fee and a further £1,600 fee are proportionate. [HL7087]
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): I can confirm that an employment agency would act as a gangmaster, as defined at Section 4 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, when supplying a
25 July 2006 : Column WA243
Fees charged for a gangmaster licence range from £250 to £4,000. In addition, where the Gangmasters Licensing Authority considers it necessary, an additional fee ranging from £1,600 to £2,500 may be charged for an application inspection. An application inspection will involve a visit to the applicant’s business lasting one to two days. Fees are banded according to business turnover with the highest fee levels applying to businesses with a turnover in the sector of more than £10 million per annum. Fee rates have been set to reflect a business’s ability to pay and to recover Gangmasters Licensing Authority operating costs. A full consultation was conducted before fee rates were fixed.
Jubilee Line: Case Review
Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Further to the Statement by the Attorney-General on 27 June (Official Report, 27/6/06; col. 1096) about the Jubilee Line case review, under what legal authority the jurors were interviewed by researchers. [HL6861]
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): The fact that the trial concluded without the jurors having commenced their deliberations made it possible lawfully to approach and interview them. The principle of the 1981 Act was observed in the agreed scope of the research and the way it was conducted. The jurors were not asked about opinions they might have been forming about whether they believed the evidence, whether the charges were proved, the likely guilt or otherwise of the defendants, or the content of their discussions with other jurors in the course of the trial.
Licensing Act 2003
Lord Jones asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What assessment has been made of (a) the Licensing Act 2003; and (b) the responsible alcohol retailing campaign launched by the British Institute of Innkeepers in reducing the incidence of drink-related crime and disorder. [HL6964]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The new licensing laws have been in place for eight months and it is still too soon to draw any conclusions about their success. What does seem clear is that there has been no discernable increase in alcohol-related crime and disorder, while there have been many reports of an improving situation and better joint working and enforcement by the police, local authorities and other partners.
25 July 2006 : Column WA244
The Government welcome initiatives to promote the responsible retailing of alcohol, such as the British Institute of Innkeepers’ responsible alcohol retailing week. We are working closely with industry representatives on the implementation of the principles and standards document which was launched by the industry last year.
NHS: Appointments
Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the method of advertising senior management posts used by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust in Birmingham is in accordance with National Health Service employment codes. [HL7064]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): The appointment of staff to executive posts is the responsibility of individual National Health Service trusts based on fair and open competition. It is for strategic health authorities to ensure that trusts comply with this. The NHS West Midlands SHA reports that the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust is compliant with the relevant employment codes.
NHS: Block Contracts
Earl Howe asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether block contracts will be allowed in the National Health Service (NHS) after Payment by Results has been implemented in 2008-09; what support and guidance will be provided to those NHS Trusts which maintain block contracts; and how NHS providers will be scrutinised to ensure that the system is being correctly implemented. [HL7153]
What assessment has been made of the effects of maintaining block contracts in the National Health Service. [HL7154]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): We anticipate that an increasing range of National Health Service services will be commissioned through payment by results, but there will always be some services for which alternative commissioning arrangements are required.
As well as publishing the tariff and core technical guidance, we are putting in place a payment by results code of conduct and assurance framework. These emphasise the importance of:
transparency and rigour in coding and costing systems;excellent monitoring and making use of shared data; and25 July 2006 : Column WA245
In the past, services were largely paid for through block (fixed-cost) contracts between purchasers and providers of care. This gave few incentives to purchasers and providers to understand and respond to the needs and preferences of patients.
The patient-led NHS allows huge potential for more responsive services and puts a premium on strong and effective commissioning with clear functions and new skills, which focuses on meeting the specific needs of the local community and groups within it.
On 13 July 2006 “Health Reform in England: Update and commissioning framework” was published. Within this document is a consultation to inform the further development of a “national model contract” which will be used to procure services from NHS trusts, foundation trusts, independent and third sector providers.
NHS: Payment by Results
Earl Howe asked Her Majesty’s Government:
How many primary care trusts have adopted payment by results in 2006-07; how many primary care trusts they expect to (a) continue adopting payment by results, and (b) begin to adopt payment by results in 2007-08; and what monitoring they will conduct to ensure that the objectives of payment by results are achieved. [HL7155]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): Payment by results is a national policy, and there is a mandatory tariff, which applies across the whole of the National Health Service. The NHS in England: The operating framework for 2006/07, published in January 2006, set out the ability for strategic health authorities to agree specific local additional rules for a fixed period of time under special circumstances. Discussions on where these might be are ongoing with the NHS.
We have a range of formal and informal evaluation tools to assist the analysis of payment by results. For example, we announced on 18 July 2006 the findings of the South Yorkshire laboratory, which tracked the progress of a health economy in which payment by results has been implemented to a faster timescale than elsewhere.
We provide a range of guidance and work with all NHS organisations and Monitor (the regulator of NHS foundation trusts) to progress the implementation of payment by results. Detailed guidance on payment by results and full copies of evaluation material are available on the department’s website www.dh.gov.uk/pbr.
25 July 2006 : Column WA246
Organised Crime: Northern Ireland
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their estimate of the total value of organised crime in 2004 and 2005 in Northern Ireland through fuel laundering and smuggling. [HL7129]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Estimates of the total non-UK duty-paid consumption are available, and are reported in Measuring Indirect Tax Losses: 2005, which is published alongside the PBR and can be found in the Library of the House.
It is not yet possible to split revenue losses between those resulting from the illicit market and those from legitimate cross-border shopping.
Estimates for 2005 are due to be published at PBR later this year.
Olympic Games 2012: Costs
Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their response to the recent reports indicating that the projected costs of the 2012 London Olympic Games have increased. [HL6897]
Lord Davies of Oldham: The costs of the Olympics are under review. The Olympic Delivery Authority is currently procuring the delivery partner that will help it to deliver the Olympic and legacy construction. One element of the delivery partner’s role will be to examine the Olympic programme and direct costs associated with it. We expect this assessment to be completed within six to nine months of the appointment. This assessment will need to be seen in the context of the legacy and wider regeneration benefits of the Olympics.
Philip Gould Associates
Lord Hanningfield asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether any payments have been made to Philip Gould Associates by HM Treasury or any of its agencies in each of the past 10 years. [HL 7098]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: No payments were made to Philip Gould Associates by HM Treasury or any of its agencies since 2002-03. The cost of providing details of payments in the earlier years would be disproportionate as a result of a change in accounting system in 2002-03.
Police: Reorganisation
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
In light of the Home Secretary’s decision to abandon the proposed mergers of police forces, whether they intend to complete the current review of the British Transport Police; and, if so, by what date. [HL7011]
25 July 2006 : Column WA247
Lord Davies of Oldham: I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement made to the House on Thursday 20 July 2006 [Official Report, cols. WS 103-04] about the outcome of the review of the British Transport Police. Copies of the Statement are also available in the Libraries of both Houses.
Questions for Written Answer
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay asked the Leader of the House:
Whether she is prepared to accept Questions for Written Answer, if necessary with a four-week response time, to maintain some parliamentary scrutiny of Government for the next 76 days.[HL 7175]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement, made in my name today, entitled “Questions for Written Answer”.
Revenue and Customs: Accountancy Rules
Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McKenzie of Luton on 13 June (WA 19-20) on the implementation of the urgent issues task force’s 40 rules, whether it is the decision of the seller alone to charge an appropriate rate for a completed contractural activity and H M Revenue and Customs will not attempt to impute an income if they believe this to be less than market value. [HL7059]
Lord McKenzie of Luton: The terms of a commercial contract are a matter for the parties concerned, not HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC would only seek to recalculate the trading profits included by an individual taxpayer in his income tax self-assessment return—or by a company in its corporation tax self-assessment return—if it considered that: (i) the trading profits had been derived from accounts not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice; (ii) any adjustments in computing taxable profits required or authorised by tax law had been incorrectly made; or (iii) if the contracts concerned were with a connected party, they had not been priced on an arm’s-length basis.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |