Written Answers
Wednesday, 5th March 1997.
Karen Refugees
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they are aware of reports that Karen refugees, who had fled to safety in Thailand near Kanchanaburi, are being forcibly repatriated to Burma in the Mergui Tavoy region where their lives are at risk; and whether Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the relevant governments to protect the lives of these refugees, and whether they will bring pressure to bear for a resolution to the conflict in this part of Burma as a matter of urgency.
We are very concerned at reports that refugees have been forcibly repatriated to Burma. Both on a national basis and with our EU partners, we have urged the Thai Government to protect civilians seeking refuge on their territory. We deplore the SLORC policies which are at the root of this humanitarian crisis: the right way to national reconciliation in Burma is through peaceful dialogue.
Gibraltar
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will consider the possibility of attaching Gibraltar to a European constituency in the United Kingdom, since Gibraltar's citizens are United Kingdom nationals.
Attaching Gibraltar to a European constituency in the UK would contravene Annex II of the 1976 EC Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. This provides that the UK will apply the provisions of the Act only in respect of the UK. Any amendment to the Act would require the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
Nato And Russia
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they and the other European members of NATO briefed Vice President Gore preparatory to his recent discussions on relations between the NATO Alliance and Russia with Prime Minister Chernomyrdin; and Secretary of State Albright before her recent visits to Eastern Europe and Moscow; and whether they will brief President Clinton before he meets President Yeltsin in March, and, if so, to what effect.
We maintain a close dialogue with the United States government on NATO matters through the meetings of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels and bilaterally.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have agreed that US Secretary of State Albright should be committing NATO to negotiations with the Russian Government on a "charter" not to be submitted to NATO member states' parliaments or the US Senate which would not be legally binding on any of the signatories; and whether, to their knowledge, such a charter would be in any way binding on any US Administration other than President Clinton's.
The form and content of a future NATO/Russia agreement are matters for negotiation between Russia and the Alliance as a whole. There is no question of any individual Ally committing NATO to any particular outcome.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have passed any authority concerning NATO matters to US Secretary of State Albright and US Under-Secretary of State Talbott that could reduce the United Kingdom's freedom of action regarding NATO in negotiations with the Russian Government, and if so within what limits.
No. Negotiations between NATO and Russia are being conducted by the Secretary General of NATO on the basis of a mandate and negotiating position agreed by all 16 Allied Governments. We strongly support the Secretary General's efforts.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Secretary of State for Defence's remarks in his speech of 3 February in Kiev, to the effect that any "NATO actions beyond its borders would invariably require a mandate from the United Nations or from the OSCE", mean that Russia already has a veto over any such possible NATO actions, both in the OSCE and in the UN Security Council.
NATO would not act in contravention of the United Nations Charter. The Russian veto in the United Nations Security Council, and the fact that OSCE takes decisions by consensus, are both well known.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they agree with President Chirac that an agreement between Russia and NATO should be discussed more widely than bilaterally between the United States and Russia (as for instance also by the Governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy), so that a consensus on European security arrangements can be achieved before the Madrid NATO summit, and be endorsed there.
Any NATO/Russia agreement would be the result of negotiations between Russia and the Alliance as a whole. The NATO Secretary General is negotiating on behalf of all the Allies. The Government strongly support his efforts.
Eu Fisheries Council:Total Allowable Catches
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether it is correct that, at the December EU Fisheries Council, the European Commission proposed cuts in Total Allowable Catches of:
and that these cuts were reduced by the Council to 20 per cent., 12 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively; and if so, whether this is consistent with the statement by Mr. Baldry in the House of Commons on 14 January that the agreement was "consistent with the scientific advice and the conservation of stocks for the future". (HC Deb., col. WA 194).
The percentage cuts in Total Allowable Catches (TACs) initially proposed by the Commission, and those finally agreed at the December Fisheries Council, are as follows:
| Commission | Council | |
| proposal | decision | |
| North Sea sole | 48 | 22 |
| Irish Sea plaice | 27 | 14 |
| West of Scotland haddock | 25 | 13 |
Maff Research Establishments
asked Her Majesty's Government:When further memoranda concerning the prior options reviews of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's public sector research establishments will be made available.
Memoranda on the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), Horticulture Research International (HRI) and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) have now been placed in the Library of the House. These set out the rationale underlying the decisions taken concerning these establishments, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 9 December (CSL) and 29 January (HRI and VLA).
Trunk Road Programme Cancellations: Respondents' Expenses
asked Her Majesty's Government:What arrangements exist for the reimbursement of property owners who incurred professional and other costs in responding to proposals for new road schemes put forward by the Department of Transport in respect of those schemes which were withdrawn by the Department of Transport on 26 November 1996.
Property owners are free to apply to the Highways Agency for reimbursement of reasonable costs necessarily incurred in responding to schemes subsequently withdrawn from my department's trunk road programme. In the case of schemes withdrawn before the announcement of a preferred route such costs are normally met only if they arose as a consequence of a direct approach by the Highways Agency or its agents.
Dot Research Site, Crowthorne: Sale
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Department of Transport's former research site at Crowthorne has been sold.
The department has exchanged contracts with Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd. to dispose of the research site at Crowthorne, to take effect from 25 March. The price is £18.2 million with a clawback provision on the undeveloped part of the site. The disposal represents a good deal for the taxpayer and the local community at Crowthorne, which will have the benefit of a respected financial institution as the new landlord. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has a long lease for most of the site, which has 14 years to run. TRL will be able to continue its excellent research, for which it is world famous.
Local Air Pollution Control:Revised Charges
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will give details of the 1997–98 charging scheme for local air pollution control under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Charges to cover the costs of local enforcing authorities in regulating processes which are subject to Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were introduced in April 1991.With the approval of the Treasury, and following consultation with local authority associations and industry, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales have made a revised scheme specifying the scale of fees and charges to take effect from 1 April 1997.The main changes are that the standard application fee is increased by £25 to £1,040, the substantial change fee is increased by £15 to £665, and the annual subsistence charge is increased by £15 to £640.In addition, an adjustment has been made to the scheme this year to introduce variable payment arrangements for operators of mobile crushing and screening plant, allowing for reduced payments for multiple plant.The scheme has been laid before both Houses and a copy placed in the Libraries.
9Mm Centrefire Weapons And Ammunition
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether 9mm centrefire ammunition is, in general, only used with pistols and, if not, what is the estimate of the number of 9mm centrefire guns that will be legally held under Section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, after full implementation of the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
In general, 9mm centrefire ammunition is only used with pistols. Certain self-loading carbines and sub-machine guns also take this ammunition, but these are prohibited weapons and held legally only by the armed forces and the police.As the 9mm cartridge was introduced in 1903, it is expected that a number of pistols of this calibre will fall within the scope of Section 6(3) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, as firearms of "historic interest" which may be kept as Section 1 weapons at secure sites designated by the Secretary of State. A small number of higher calibre handguns kept for purposes specifically exempted under the 1997 Act—for example, those held in connection with the humane killing of animals—will be Section 1 weapons and may include those chambered for 9mm ammunition.The Government anticipate that, following the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, the number of legally held Section 1 weapons chambered for 9mm centrefire ammunition will be very small.
Royal Parks: Facilities For Cyclists
asked Her Majesty's Government:What were the recommendations made by the Royal Parks Review Committee chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins about facilities for cyclists in Royal Parks; and which of those recommendations have been implemented, and which have not been implemented.
Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
Letter to Lord Taverne from the Chief Executive of The Royal Parks, Mr. David Welch, dated 5 March 1997.
I have been asked by the Secretary of State for National Heritage to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what were the recommendations of the Royal Parks Review Committee regarding cycling in the Royal Parks and whether they have been implemented.
I have set out below the Review Group's recommendations and the progress that has been made on implementing them.
All Royal Parks
—Park regulations to be regularly enforced to create a climate of opinion in which cyclists keep to their designated routes.
Enforcement of the Royal Parks regulations is an ongoing process, and the Royal Parks Constabulary enforce the regulations against illegal cyclists as resources and operational requirements permit.
—The needs and impact of cyclists should be reviewed at regular intervals.
The agency carried out a comprehensive review of cycling in the Royal Parks in 1994, consulting cycling organisations, local authorities and other interested parties. We carried out a separate consultation on whether to allow cycling in Kensington Gardens in 1995. Consultants have just carried out a safety audit of cycle tracks in Hyde Park for the agency's Health and Safety Committee.
—Cycle tracks to be well marked, signposted and shown on maps at park entrances.
Cycle tracks in the Royal Parks are marked and, where appropriate, signposted. Maps at park entrances show where the cycle tracks are. Parks with cycle tracks have produced or are producing leaflets on where to cycle and good cycling practice.
Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens
—Present cycle tracks should be supplemented to create cycle tracks to complete routes around north and south edges of Kensington Gardens and the agency should investigate new north/south link.
Following consultation of interested parties in 1995, we concluded that we could not justify introducing cycling, which would radically affect the nature and use of Kensington Gardens, principally for the convenience of commuting cyclists. However, in Hyde Park an additional cycle route is currently being installed alongside West Carriage Drive.
—Special attention to be paid to creating easier, safer links with other cycle routes, particularly between Hyde Park and other central London parks.
We accommodate cycle tracks where we can without inconveniencing or endangering other park users. We try to ensure that they link with existing cycle routes, though they do not always link directly with destinations outside the parks. We also discuss with neighbouring local authorities any proposals they have for cycle routes that might link with those in the parks.
St. James's Park and Green Park
—The agency should investigate the possibility of providing two cycle tracks, one linking Hyde Park Corner and Birdcage Walk, via the Queen Victoria Gardens, and one parallel to the Mall on the north side, then crossing the Mall and running alongside Horse Guards Road.
We have completed a cycle track along Constitution Hill from Hyde Park Corner to Queen Victoria Gardens. The scope for installing cycle routes in St. James's Park is severely limited by the number of people using the park and its status as the nation's premier ceremonial route.
Greenwich Park
—The agency should mark out a new cycle track between Vanbrugh Gate and St. Mary's Gate via Great Cross Avenue to link with another to be created along Blackheath Avenue and The Avenue.
This is to be included in the agency's Corporate Plan for completion in 1999–2000, subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
Richmond Park
—The cycleway circuit is an imaginative project which should be completed as soon as possible. Detailed design including signage, surface and crossings should respect the overriding quality of the rural environment.
The track, which was completed in 1996 and is already in use, will be officially opened in May. The track and its signage was designed with due regard to its rural setting in mind.
—Regulations against the use of mountain bikes should be enforced.
All park regulations are enforced rigorously, subject to operational priorities and the availability of resources.
—Park management should investigate the scope for cycle hire.
Cycle hire facilities have been introduced and it is planned to expand the service over the next two years.
—The creation of a cycle training centre or a racing circuit should not be allowed.
We would not consider such a proposal, which would be contrary to the tradition and character of a deer park and would be likely to endanger the cyclists, other park users and deer.
Bushy Park
Cycle routes should be designated on Chestnut Avenue and Cobblers Walk and a recreational cycling circuit established using sections of these through routes and other suitable paths.
We have agreed these cycle tracks in principle and will install them as soon as resources permit.
—Secure cycle racks should be provided in car parks and consideration given to the potential for cycle hire.
Cycle tracks will be provided as resources permit. We will consider proposals from people wishing to set up cycle hire facilities on a franchise basis, like those in Richmond Park, once the cycle tracks have been installed.
Fluoridation Of Water
asked Her Majesty's Government:Which research reports they rely on to support (a) the effectiveness and (b) the safety of water fluoridation; andWhether they study all research findings on fluoridation as they are published worldwide, and, if so, by what means.
Government advisors on fluoridation regularly monitor the scientific literature and, if required, will evaluate any research likely to be relevant to the safety of water fluoridation.It is not possible to provide a full list of scientific publications used in support of the Government's policy of water fluoridation, given that the policy is based on advice obtained from a variety of sources, some external to the Department of Health, each with its own area of expertise and source material on fluoridation.