| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Monday, 8th December 2003.
Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord President on 10 September (WA 123) concerning North/South implementation bodies, why it was considered necessary to provide a car for the chief executive of the Special European Union Programmes Body.[HL99]
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): I have nothing further to add to the answer given on 10 September 2003 (Official Report, WA 123).
EU Draft Constitutional Treaty: Data Protection Rules
Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Why they are proposing in the intergovernmental conference on a European Union constitution that the scope of Union rules on data protection should not extend to justice and home affairs and common foreign and security policy matters.[HL14]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): The Government support a single treaty structure which would require, as a consequence, provisions in the treaty which reflect the special arrangements for CFSP and some parts of JHA, including to reflect the restrictions and exemptions relating to data processing contained in Directive 95/46/EC.
Heroin Prescribing
Lord Chadlington asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How discussions are progressing between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency on pilot projects to test aspects of the heroin prescribing guidance.[HL29]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): The Home Office, Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency have agreed a specification for the pilots and will now invite tenders for potential pilot sites. The aim is to develop four pilots and to have the first in operation by April 2004.
Internet Fraud
Lord Chadlington asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What they are doing to prevent e-fraud, in light of the increasing number of people being tricked by fraudulent e-mails into divulging their bank details. [HL75]Joan
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This practice, commonly known as "phishing", is an offence (or attempted offence) of fraud which can be prosecuted under the Theft Acts or under the commmon law of conspiracy to defraud. The maximum penalty for the main fraud offences (including attempts to commit them) is 10 years' imprisonment.
In response to recent incidents, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU), together with the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) and the British Bankers Association (BBA), has issued a checklist for UK consumers to help protect themselves against Internet fraudsters. Although the early indications are that very few people have responded to these e-mails, public awareness is essential in order to tackle this issue.
The Home Office chaired a consultation group to look at ways to combat new crime threats from e-tailing. As a result we are working on the construction of a website that will draw together the wealth of existing information on electronic crime prevention and make it more readily available.
Salisbury District Local Plan
Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they expect to announce a decision on the local plan for Salisbury.[HL12]
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): There have been two recent hearings relating to the Salisbury District Local Plan which has been the subject of a High Court challenge to its adoption. I understand further hearings are anticipated in the new year with a decision likely to follow soon afterwards.
Planning Law and National Planning Policy: 20th Century Listed Buildings
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the application for the Greenside case will be called in for a planning inquiry so that Runnymede Council's grounds for granting demolition of a 1937 listed building can be examined. [HL93]
Lord Rooker: Runnymede Borough Council has recently referred the Greenside listed building application to my right honourable friend the Deputy
Prime Minister. This allows him an opportunity to consider whether or not to call in the application for his own determination. It is not possible to anticipate the decision of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister at this stage.
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 overrides both planning law and national planning policy.[HL94]
Lord Rooker: The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out specific basic rights, including the right to peaceful enjoyment of property; the right to respect for private and family life and the home; and the entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. Some of these rights are absolute while othes are considerations which have to be weighed in the balance against matters of public interest, such as the preservation of the environment in the case of planning decisions, when a public decision is being made and may interfere with an individual's rights. These principles are relevant in all areas of public law, including the planning system. Therefore, regard has to be paid too them to ensure that they are observed in the day-to-day operation of the planning system and that planning decisions are compatible with the Human Rights Act.
It is a matter for the courts to determine whether any particular aspects of planning law or national planning policy are incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The House of Lords decided that the planning system was not incompatible with the right to a fair and public hearing as required by the Human Rights Act in its judgment in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & the Regions ex parte Holding & Barnes plc.
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What measures they intend to take to ensure that council officers and planning committee members are adequately informed of the merits of 20th century buildings which contribute to the national heritage.[HL95]
Lord Rooker: Local planning authorities are required to consult the appropriate national amenity society in respect of applications to demolish listed buildings. In the case of 20th century buildings (in all decades except the first) this is the Twentieth Century Society. However, the Government also advise that authorities should have adequate specialist expertise available to them to discharge their responsibilities for listed buildings and conservation policy generally. In addition, English Heritage, the Government's statutory adviser, has to be consulted on all listed building applications.
Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the Greenside case has set a precedent in planning law and national planning policy which other applicants would be able to follow.[HL96]
Lord Rooker: It is not possible for me to comment on this particular case as it is currently before my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister for consideration. However, it is important that all concerned in the listed building process follow the correct procedures.
Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Who was responsible for advising, and when and in what ways they advised, troops deploying to the first Gulf conflict of their rights in regard to accepting or rejecting vaccines used under the multiple immunisation programme adopted by the Ministry of Defence; when troops were advised that the pertussis vaccines were not licensed for administration to adults or for use as an adjuvant; and when they were told that the widely used Merieux pertussis vaccine was not licensed for use at all in the United Kingdom.[HL41]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): The Ministry of Defence's intention was that immunisations were to be voluntary. However, when instructions were cascaded down the command chain, in some cases the voluntary nature of immunisations was not adequately communicated by medical staff prior to immunisation which may have led to a perception that immunisation was mandatory. It appears that the voluntary nature of the anti-biological warfare immunisation programme, which included the use of pertussis vaccine, was clearly understood and implemented in some units, but not in others. A combination of leadership by example, peer pressure and lack of clear instructions left some personnel with either no conception that they could refuse the immunisations, or a definite understanding that they were not expected to do so. Where detailed documentary evidence exists it clearly shows a proportion of personnel refusing immunisations, implying proper application of the voluntary policy in at least these cases. Information on whether personnel were advised in 1991 of the pertussis vaccine licensing position is not available.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 9 October (WA 67), whether the hepatitis A vaccine was administered to troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict at the same time as that for polio or yellow fever; if so, in how many cases it was administered; and how many of those deployed were given a cholera vaccine with yellow fever or tetanus.[HL77]
Lord Bach: At the time of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, a specific immunisation against Hepatitis A was unavailable. I refer my noble friend to paragraph 25 of Annex E to the MoD paper, Implementation of the Immunisation Programme Against Biological Warfare
Agents for UK Forces during the Gulf Conflict 1990/1991, dated 20 January 2000. A copy of this paper has been placed in the Library of the House. It is available on the Internet at: www.mod.uk/issues/gulfwar/info/medical/bwa.htm and in hard copy as set out in my Answer of 20 November 2003 (Official Report, Col. 341 WA).
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |