Written Answers
Thursday, 3rd December 1998.
Central America
asked Her Majesty's Government:What are their plans for further assistance to Central America in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. [HL173]
An assessment mission from DFID visited Honduras and Nicaragua on 23–28 November. They had an extensive programme of field visits to disaster affected areas and discussions with Governments, UN agencies, the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank, Red Cross and NGOs, EC and other donors. Our findings and conclusions are as follows:
Situation Assessment
Consolidated estimates of damage confirm that Honduras is, by far, the worst affected country. Some 20,000 are dead and missing, 285,000 displaced and overall about 1.4 million (out of a total population of 6.1 million) affected. The physical devastation is widespread, affecting 14 out of 18 administrative departments: 60 per cent. of roads and bridges, 50 per cent. of agricultural production (including a fifth of the economically important coffee and nearly all the banana export crops), 80 per cent. of water distribution networks, 70 per cent. of hospitals, 12 per cent. of health centres, and 25 per cent. of schools are destroyed or severely damaged. The effects of the disaster, still starkly visible a month later, are reflected most obviously in disrupted access and basic utilities. Groups of destitute families are living under ramshackle and insanitary conditions wherever they can find shelter.
In Nicaragua, damage to infrastructure has been more moderate, though still significant in five departments (Pacific coast and the north). Overall, some 3,000 are dead and missing, and 370,000 (out of a total population of 4.5 million) severely affected. But, in contrast to Honduras, the physical effects and human impact are less evident a month later.
The mission did not visit El Salvador (population 5.8 million, 475 killed/missing, 84,000 affected) and Guatemala (population 10.9 million, 400 killed/missing, 105,000 affected) but reports suggest substantially less damage. In both countries, agricultural losses appear to be more significant than infrastructure damage (except in particular pockets).
Assessment of disaster response
In both Honduras and Nicaragua, a striking feature has been the self-help efforts of the communities themselves, reflecting the strong regional tradition of community solidarity. Most lives were saved and vulnerable people helped by indigenous efforts as the physical disruption of the hurricane and floods meant that it took time for outside help to arrive. The strength of local government was a key factor in enabling good local mobilisation.
The most effective external life-saving interventions appear to have been carried out by the military (both national and foreign forces). However, there are lessons to be drawn in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of tasking and military/civil co-operation. The Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua also responded effectively.
Co-ordination in both countries presents a mixed picture. However it is important to recognise the practical constraints (especially in Honduras) and the burden placed by outside organisations rushing in. The UN-co-ordinated needs assessment process was crucial and reached credible conclusions. The UN Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination (UNDAC) mechanism of OCHA was also useful and appropriately deployed in support of the in-country UN Resident Co-ordinator. Inter-agency co-operation within the UN system appears to have been satisfactory. But overall, the UN could have been more assertive in terms of providing guidance and "gate-keeping", and donors more conscientious—and less competitive—in deferring to UN co-ordination.
The EC, through ECHO, has disbursed funds for immediate relief through NGOs working in the region, and is planning an extensive reconstruction package. In the Development Council on 30 November, I emphasised the importance of co-ordinating this with the wider international assistance effort. We intend to work closely with the EC to ensure that its assistance is disbursed as effectively as possible.
International NGOs have also made useful contributions. The best work is being done by agencies already established on the ground. They are able to mobilise existing systems and structures and draw on the local knowledge and trust they have built up. This contrasts with the many disaster relief organisations that have flocked to the region and have had difficulty in finding a meaningful niche while possibly creating additional problems for their hosts (for example overburdening internal transport systems).
Impact of DFID humanitarian assistance
Britain was among the fastest in delivering relief on the ground. In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, a total of about £1 million was granted by DFID to NGOs (CAFOD, CARE, Christian Aid, Del Campo farmers' co-operative, Food for the Hungry, IRC, Tear Fund, the International Federation of Red Cross, the Pan American Health Organisations, and the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA)). The geographical distribution of funding to date is about £370,000 for Honduras, £390,000 for Nicaragua, £15,000 for El Salvador, and £200,000 for regional use to benefit all four countries. Most of our grants have been disbursed very rapidly and transformed into urgently needed benefits for an estimated 0.5 million people. These include provision of emergency shelter, clothing, blankets and household goods, water supplies, health care, seeds and other agricultural inputs.
Forward strategy
Immediate disaster relief needs have been largely met except perhaps for the most isolated communities. Planning for the longer term needs of reconstruction is progressing but it will be at least six months before we see real progress. Meanwhile, there is a transition period in which continued humanitarian assistance is necessary. Survivors—especially those who are displaced—remain vulnerable to disease in the absence of safe water and disruption of health services. Food security can be promoted if inputs are made in time for the current planting season. If primary schooling is not restored, vulnerable children may drop out permanently from education. The solution to meeting these urgent needs is, as has been demonstrated already, by supporting successful community efforts in close conjunction with socially responsive local municipal authorities, in a way that kick starts local economies. But one very serious constraint—especially in Honduras—is the continued lack of access to poor communities because of disrupted roads. Without tackling this very little else is possible, and vulnerability will increase as people's reserves run out.
The UN is about to launch a "Transitional Appeal" for the period December 1998 to May 1999. This should provide a good framework of priorities. Our own further transitional humanitarian assistance, over the next six months, will enable people—especially the poor who have been left completely destitute by the disaster—to survive and cope, while seeking to establish the basis for sustainable recovery.
In the light of this, I have decided that, during this transitional period, we will provide further humanitarian assistance of £3 million allocated according to the relative needs of the affected countries. This will include:
In Honduras, a programme of emergency repairs and rehabilitation to secondary (rural) roads, including essential small bridges; and also a public works programme ("cash for work") targeting particularly neglected municipalities. This would benefit poor families by creating short-term local employment while also generating much needed social benefits through the rehabilitation of essential community infrastructure, and injecting cash into local economies.
In Nicaragua support for UNICEF's emergency programmes to repair water and sanitation infrastructure and to restore primary health and education services for disaster affected communities.
On a regional basis, support for a WHO/PAHO programme within the national health authorities of the four Central American countries, especially in the area of epidemiological surveillance and epidemic control.
Support for UNDP's function of inter-agency co-ordination through the Offices of the UN Resident/Humanitarian Co-ordinators in all affected countries.
Longer Term
We are also working on plans to respond to longer term needs. We have already committed £6 million for Central America over the next two years. We are now refocusing this to take account of reconstruction needs. We are also taking forward the proposals on debt relief which the Chancellor and I announced on 7 November.
Learning the lessons
Given the magnitude of the disaster and the complexity of the international and national response efforts, there are many lessons to be learned to improve disaster preparedness in developing countries. We shall be pursuing these in the context of a UN-led lessons learnt exercise planned for February 1999.
Council Of Europe And Weu Assemblies: New Appointment
asked Her Majesty's Government:If there are any changes in the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [HL 170]
Mr. Richard Allan MP has been appointed as a substitute representative in place of Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Police Grant
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will set out the allocation of police grant for individual police authorities in England and Wales in 1999–2000. [HL171]
A copy of the proposals of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for the allocation of police grant for 1999–2000 has today been placed in the Library. He intends to implement these proposals, subject to consideration of any representations he receives about them.My right honourable friend announced in July, following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, that spending overall on the police service in England and Wales would be increased by £1.24 billion in the years 1999–2002. The increases will be 2.67 per cent. in 1999–2000, up to a further 2.8 per cent. in 2000–2001, and up to an extra 4 per cent. in 2001–2002. These sums represent a real terms increase, albeit small, in police spending.The police service has indicated its support in principle for the continued distribution of police grant in accordance with a needs-based formula. My right honourable friend therefore proposes to continue to allocate the greater part of police grant according to the police funding formula.He is, however, proposing several changes to the formula to reflect the latest data now available, and in response to the representations he has received. The principal changes he proposes are: to reduce from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. the share of funding allocated on the basis of forces' past establishments;to increase from 13.2 per cent. to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of funding allocated on the basis of forces' pensions commitments.My right honourable friend is proposing that the Metropolitan Police should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions. It has proved difficult for the principal formula appropriately to take account of these special circumstances. He has proposed, therefore, that a special payment of grant will be made to the Metropolitan Police over and above that available through the principal formula. He has set the amount of this special payment at £176 million.In addition, my right honourable friend is proposing to make special payments of grant to the following police authorities in 1999–2000, in recognition of the additional costs which will be incurred in preparation for the proposed changes to the Metropolitan Police District boundaries:
| Essex: | £2 million |
| Hertfordshire: | £3 million |
| Surrey: | £7 million |
| 1998–1999 | 1999–2000 | |
| Allocation1 | Allocation1 | |
| Police Authority | £ million | £ million |
| English Shire forces | ||
| Avon & Somerset | 164.3 | 168.4 |
| Bedfordshire | 60.9 | 61.4 |
| Cambridgeshire | 71.9 | 74.8 |
| Cheshire | 104.7 | 109.0 |
| Cleveland | 80.4 | 81.5 |
| Cumbria | 59.0 | 60.0 |
| Derbyshire | 97.7 | 101.7 |
| Devon & Cornwall | 167.4 | 174.4 |
| Dorset | 67.8 | 70.1 |
| Durham | 78.1 | 81.3 |
| Essex | 158.4 | 163.0 |
| Gloucestershire | 61.5 | 62.4 |
| Hampshire | 189.1 | 194.6 |
| Hertfordshire | 94.1 | 100.1 |
| Humberside | 110.6 | 113.0 |
| Kent | 178.9 | 183.2 |
| Lancashire | 174.9 | 178.3 |
| Leicestershire | 99.1 | 102.3 |
| Lincolnshire | 60.7 | 63.4 |
| Norfolk | 80.9 | 83.5 |
| North Yorkshire | 75.6 | 77.6 |
| Northamptonshire | 62.8 | 65.2 |
| Nottinghamshire | 123.0 | 126.4 |
| Staffordshire | 111.1 | 113.0 |
| Suffolk | 66.0 | 68.7 |
| Surrey | 84.2 | 92.0 |
| Sussex | 162.6 | 166.4 |
| Thames Valley | 219.3 | 224.6 |
| Warwickshire | 51.1 | 52.0 |
| West Mercia | 110.0 | 113.1 |
| Wiltshire | 63.4 | 64.9 |
| English Metropolitan forces | ||
| Greater Manchester | 364.8 | 375.7 |
| Merseyside | 233.3 | 236.3 |
| Northumbria | 205.4 | 213.0 |
| South Yorkshire | 165.4 | 171.3 |
| West Midlands | 371.9 | 380.6 |
| West Yorkshire | 279.5 | 286.3 |
| London forces | ||
| Metropolitan Police2 | 1,715.3 | 1,744.1 |
| City of London3 | 57.1 | 55.4 |
| English total | 6,682.6 | 6,852.7 |
| Welsh forces | ||
| Dyfed-Powys | 51.1 | 51.5 |
| Gwent | 67.3 | 69.3 |
| North Wales | 73.2 | 75.1 |
| South Wales | 161.3 | 163.1 |
| Welsh total | 353.0 | 359.0 |
| TOTAL | 7,035.5 | 7,211.7 |
| Notes: | ||
| 1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Reduction Grant. | ||
| 2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment. | ||
| 3 Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (e.g. Capital Financing) and Central Support Reduction Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions. | ||
Boards Of Visitors: National Advisory Council Annual Report
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they received a copy of the Annual Report for 1997 by the National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors of England and Wales. [HL187]
I was presented with a copy of the National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors of England and Wales Annual Report for 1997 by its Chairman, Mrs. Ruth Draycott OBE JP, on 18 August 1998.As the Minister for Prisons, I will consider the report and respond to the issues raised in it.A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.
Life Sentence Prisoners
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many inmates currently serving sentences of life imprisonment were sentenced (a) to the mandatory penalty for murder, or (b) at the discretion of court on conviction for other serious crimes. [HL43]
The latest available information is for 30 September 1998. On that date there were 3,223 mandatory and 757 discretionary life sentence prisoners in prisons in England and Wales.
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many inmates currently serving sentences of life imprisonment, either at a Prison Service establishment or a special hospital, have served more than 30 years in custody. [HL42]
The available information relates to persons detained in Prison Service establishments whose date of sentence was more than 30 years ago. No information is available centrally regarding persons detained in special hospitals.Provisional information for 30 September 1998 shows that 50 persons were sentenced to life imprisonment more than 30 years ago. Of these, 12 persons are recorded as being held in continuous custody. It is, however, difficult to identify persons in continuous custody, as detailed movement records for persons sentenced over 30 years ago are not complete. The number should therefore be regarded as an estimate only.Information on the number of persons in prison by the interval since reception under sentence are published in successive volumes of
Prison statistics England and Wales (Table 5.3 of the 1997 edition, Cm 4017), copies of which are in the Library.
Motorists: Blood/Urine Samples
asked Her Majesty's Government:Why motorists arrested on suspicion of excess alcohol in the blood and wishing to give a sample of urine rather than blood are not entitled to that option. [HL33]
The great majority of prosecutions for drink drive offences use evidence from the evidential breath alcohol testing instruments in police stations. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) sets out a few specific situations, including relevant medical reasons or where drug influence is suspected, when a constable may require a sample of blood or urine instead of breath. Section 7(4) of the Act states that it is for the constable to decide whether it should be blood or urine and the choice of the police is normally for blood. This is for a number of reasons, which include hygiene, greater certainty of obtaining an evidential sample and best use of police resources. However, the Act goes on to state that if a medical practitioner is of the opinion that, for medical reasons, a specimen of blood cannot be or should not be taken, then a urine specimen should be used. This legislation has been tested and confirmed in the courts over a long period.
Wales: General Schools Budgets
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will publish a list showing for each Local Education Authority (LEA) in Wales for 1998–99, its General Schools Budget, its Potential Schools Budget, the difference between these two amounts expressed as a figure and as a percentage of the General Schools Budget withheld by each LEA which is outside its Potential Schools Budget and the total amount under each heading. [HL104]
The information requested is given in the table.
| LEA Education Funding 1998–99 | ||||
| Difference | ||||
| Difference | as % of | |||
| LEA | GSB (£k) | PSB (£k) | (£k) | GSB |
| Anglesey | 29,612 | 24,258 | 5,354 | 18.1 |
| Blaenau Gwent | 28,519 | 23,711 | 4,808 | 16.9 |
| Bridgend | 56,873 | 47,100 | 9,773 | 17.2 |
| Caerphilly | 77,539 | 61,715 | 15,824 | 20.4 |
| Cardiff | 131,028 | 100,406 | 30,622 | 23.4 |
| Carmarthen | 77,596 | 63,761 | 13,835 | 17.8 |
| Ceredigion | 35,410 | 26,703 | 8,707 | 24.6 |
| Conwy | 33,623 | 25,580 | 8,043 | 23.9 |
| Denbighshire | 37,315 | 30,466 | 6,849 | 18.4 |
| Flintshire | 59,737 | 49,766 | 9,971 | 16.7 |
| Gwynedd | 51,424 | 40,713 | 10,711 | 20.8 |
| Merthyr Tydfil | 28,959 | 24,598 | 4,361 | 15.1 |
| Monmouthshire | 34,108 | 26,687 | 7,421 | 21.8 |
| Neath Port Talbot | 60,432 | 51,004 | 9,428 | 15.6 |
LEA Education Funding 1998–99
| ||||
Difference
| ||||
Difference
| as % of
| |||
LEA
| GSB (£k)
| PSB (£k)
| (£k)
| GSB
|
| Newport | 61,010 | 49,069 | 11,941 | 19.6 |
| Pembrokeshire | 53,039 | 42,634 | 10,405 | 19.6 |
| Powys | 60,807 | 45,700 | 15,107 | 24.8 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taff | 119,836 | 92,474 | 27,362 | 22.8 |
| Swansea | 89,618 | 73,626 | 15,992 | 17.8 |
| Torfaen | 38,131 | 32,745 | 5,386 | 14.1 |
| Vale of Glamorgan | 42,048 | 33,995 | 8,053 | 19.2 |
| Wrexham | 44,526 | 37,216 | 7,310 | 16.4 |
| Wales | 1,251,190 | 1,003,927 | 247,263 | 19.8 |
Notes:
| ||||
| GSB: General Schools Budget, i.e., the amount spent directly and indirectly on school based education; | ||||
| PSB: Potential Schools Budget, i.e., the amount an LEA could potentially delegate to its schools after deducting prescribed "excepted" items of expenditure. | ||||
Source:
| ||||
| LEA Section 122 budget statements 1998–99. | ||||
Charities Taxation Review
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the forthcoming Tax Review Consultation paper will address the difficulties imposed on small rural communities by the recent clarification note issued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on the VAT refund scheme. [HL71]
Over 3,000 responses were received in the first phase of the Review of Charities' Taxation, including letters from charities concerned about rural community issues. All the contributions are currently being analysed and will inform a public consultation document which will be published as soon as possible.
Eurostar Services To South West England
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the provision of Eurostar services to the South West of England has been reviewed by the train operator consortium. [HL72]
The consortium chosen by LCR to operate Eurostar have been asked to review all options for feasible regional Eurostar services, and to put proposals to the Government before the end of the year. Ministers will report the outcome of the review to Parliament before the end of the year.
Genetically Modified Plant Varieties: Seed Listing Applications
asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by Lord Donoughue on 22 October (
WA 183), whether they will list those applications which they have received for marketing consent under Directive 90/220 for varieties of plants which are genetically modified and which are subject to applications for National Seed Listing in this country, indicating the dates of application and consent, the proposing member state, the current status, the corresponding National Seed List application reference number and date, and, if different from the national list applications, the applicant's name. [HL38]
The applications for genetically modified plants which have been received for marketing consent under Directive 90/220 which are also subject to applications for National Seed Listing in the UK are:
- (1) Marketing Application for glufosinate tolerant maize
- Reference number: C/F/95/12/07
- Date of application: 31 May 1996
- Date of consent: consent issued by French Competent Authority (awaiting formal notification from Commission)
- Proposing Member State: France
- Applicant's name: Advanta
- Current status: Commission adopted decision 22 April 1998
- Corresponding National Seed List Application
- Reference number: 51/833
- Date of application: 16 Janaury 1998
- Applicant's name: Van der Have
- (2) Marketing Application for glufosinate tolerant and hybrid system oilseed rape
- Reference number: 94/M1/1
- Date of application: 7 February 1994
- Date of consent: 28 February 1996
- Proposing Member State: United Kingdom
- Applicant's name: Plant Genetic Systems
- Current status: Consent issued for commercial seed production only
- Marketing Applications for glufosinate tolerant and hybrid system oilseed rape
- Reference number: C/F/95/05–01(A) and (B)
- Date of application: 27 July 1995
- Date of consent: consent not yet issued
- Proposing Member State: France
- Applicant's name: Plant Genetic Systems
- Current status: Qualified majority vote in favour (5 December 1996)
- Corresponding National Seed List Applications
| Reference number: | 35/959, 35/960, 35/1210, 35/1211, 35/1316, 35/1318 |
| Date of application: | 14 December 1995 (35/959, 35/960) |
| 12 January 1998 (35/1210, 35/1211) | |
| 11 August 1998 (35/1316, 35/1318) | |
| Applicant's name: | Plant Genetic Systems |
Hedgerow Regulations 1997
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will confirm that neither the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, nor any amending measure, will remove or reduce that protection of hedgerows which is provided within acts of enclosure passed before 1840. [HL108]
Yes. Consent given under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 to remove a hedgerow does not override other legal obligations, such as those contained in Inclosure Acts and Awards. Any revisions to the regulations or the governing legislation should not alter the position.
Motorway Service Stations
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will list the stretches of motorway (including stretches of linked motorways) where the spacing between motorway services areas significantly exceeds the recommended 30 mile gap; whether they consider that spacings in excess of 30 miles are excessive in view of current and anticipated volumes of traffic; and whether they have plans to encourage services to be built in identified gaps. [HL116]
I regret that my reply of 11 November (WA99–100) omitted a group of motorway journeys during which it is possible to travel more than 30 miles between motorway services areas (MSAs). In addition to those involving the western side of the M.25 and the eastern end of the M.20 that I identified then, it is also possible to travel more than 30 miles between services on the M.18/M.180/M.62.There are a number of current planning applications for MSAs on the M.25(W) which could potentially fill the gap which exists there. For the M.20, planning permission has been granted for a site at Junction 11, construction of which would fill that gap. Similarly, the remaining M.18/M.180/M.62 gaps would be filled by construction of the MSA for which planning permission has been granted.
Fatal Injuries
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many people have been killed in each of the last five years:
and what is the average cost of a typical investigation of these deaths. [HL117]
The following information is available:(a) Great Britain
| Year | Fatal road casualties1 | Homicides2 |
| 1993 | 3,814 | 681 |
| 1994 | 3,650 | 743 |
| 1995 | 3,621 | 796 |
| 1996 | 3,598 | 722 |
| 1997 | 3,599 | 738 |
| 1 Road accident casualties who sustained injuries which caused death less than 30 days after the accident. | ||
| 2 Homicides currently recorded by the police (victims of offences of murder, manslaughter or infanticide in England and Wales, and of murder or culpable homicide in Scotland). | ||
Driving Licence Penalty Points
asked Her Majesty's Government:What progress has been made towards recognition in all European Union member states of penalty points applied to driving licences following the agreement of a convention on disqualification from driving made during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union. [HL118]
The Convention on Driving Disqualifications (Council Act of 17 June 1998) does not extend to the mutual recognition of penalty points and there are no current moves towards such recognition. Not all European Union member states have penalty points systems, and among those systems which exist there is considerable variation in how they operate, what offences they cover, and how they affect the licence holder.
Human Fertilisation And Embryology Act 1990: Review Of Consent Provisions
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they intend to publish the report following the review by Professor Sheila McLean of the consent provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. [HL188]
We are pleased to announce that the report of the Review of the common law provisions relating to the removal of human gametes (sperm or eggs) and of the consent provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The review, announced in February 1997, was conducted by Sheila McLean, Professor of Law and Ethics in Medicine at the University of Glasgow, and followed the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R v. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex parte Diane Blood.In September 1997 Professor McLean conducted a public consultation on the issues raised in the course of her review. Over 600 copies of her discussion document were issued, with 116 responses being received.We welcome Professor McLean's report, which, following a thorough and comprehensive review of the complex issues involved, has delivered sensible and well argued recommendations. These include:in terms of the common law provisions relating to the removal of human gametes the report recommends that the current requirement for formal consent following adequate disclosure of information, should remain;the courts should be asked to determine whether the removal of gametes is lawful where there is any doubt about such removal in cases where consent cannot be given in the usual way;the requirement in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for consent to certain treatment provided under the Act (such as
in-vitro fertilisation and donor insemination) to be given in writing should remain, and be extended to all treatment provided under the Act; and
that the 1990 Act should be amended to remove from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority any discretion to permit the export of human gametes that have been removed unlawfully;
recommendations about the status of children born after the death of the gamete provider and the need for gamete providers to take account of succession rights of such children when storing gametes.
Following Mrs. Blood's case, there was considerable public and parliamentary interest in such issues and in particular as to whether the existing provisions in the common law and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 reflected clinical and lay opinion. We have decided, therefore, to seek public and professional views on the recommendations. These will be requested by the end of April, when we will consider the best way of taking the recommendations forward.
We are very grateful to Professor Sheila McLean for having produced such a carefully considered report.
Mental Health Act 1983: Revised Code Of Practice
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will lay a revised version of the Code of Practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 before the House. [HL 189]
We have today laid copies of a revised version of the Code of Practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 before the House, in accordance with Section 118(4) of the Act. Copies are available in the Library.
Human Reproductive Cloning
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the ethical implications of cloning human tissue by injecting human DNA into the egg cells of cows are being examined in the United Kingdom; and, if so, by whom. [HL9]
Research or treatment involving human reproductive cloning is not permitted in the United Kingdom. Mixing human gametes (sperm or eggs) with the gametes of any animal is strictly controlled by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 provides:that no person shall mix human gametes with the live gametes of any animal without a licence (S4)that no person shall place any live gametes other than human gametes in any woman or place a human embryo in any animal (S3)no person shall alter the genetic structure of any cell while it forms part of a human embryo (Sch 2)Research involving the cloning of human DNA is not new. In their joint Consultation Document on
Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine, the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority pointed out that "there are some routine techniques long practised by the scientific and medical communities…[including]…generating multiple identical copies of genes or gene fragments…(DNA and RNA)".
asked Her Majesty's Government:What international instruments or other justiciable texts, if any, preclude the cloning of human beings; and, if none, what steps are being considered to establish one. [HL10]
The Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Universal Declaration on the human genome and human rights both preclude the cloning of human beings. The United Kingdom has played an active role in developing both the Protocol and the Declaration, and support the principles that they both enshrine.In the United Kingdom, we regard the deliberate cloning of human individuals as ethically unacceptable and such cloning is effectively banned under the terms of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The 1990 Act expressly prohibits nuclear replacement of a cell of an embryo. Other forms of cloning cannot take place because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has made it clear that it will not licence any treatment involving such techniques or any research to develop cloning for human reproductive purposes.
Road Traffic Accidents: Insurance Payments For Treatment Costs
asked Her Majesty's Government:What amounts of money have been collected by hospital trusts from insurance companies in respect of road traffic accidents under the Road Traffic Act since new guidelines were issued in December 1997. [HL57]
Figures for part years are not available. Audited figures for 1997–98 show that trusts in England collected £16.64 million under the terms of Sections 157 and 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This compares to £13.863 million in 1996–97.
Personal Social Services: Capital Allocations
asked Her Majesty's Government:What capital resources they are making available to local authorities for the personal social services in 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. [HL172]
Capital resources of £61.9 million will be made available to local authorities as follows:
| £ million | |||
| 1999–00 | 2000–01 | 2001–02 | |
| Secure accommodation grant | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.2 |
| Basic credit approvals | 37.0 | 37.0 | 37.0 |
| Supplementary credit approvals: | |||
| Mental Health | 15.6 | 15.6 | 15.6 |
| AIDS/HIV | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 |
Old Palace Yard: Granite Setts
asked the Chairman of Committees:Whether he will give an undertaking that the granite used in the refurbishment of Old Palace Yard will be British. [HL138]
No. Provenance cannot be taken into account in choosing the granite to be used: the appearance of the granite and value for money must be considered. I can, however, give an assurance that British granites will be examined by the designers. I shall share in the noble Lord's happiness if a British granite is used.
Iraq: Enforcement Of Sanctions
asked Her Majesty's Government:What steps they have taken, are taking and will take, to enforce the sanctions regime on Iraq; and [HL47]What range of measures they are taking further to reduce breaches of the United Nations embargo on trade with Iraq. [HL48]
Since August, we have participated in a series of occasional intensified maritime operations into Iraqi waters. These operations have significantly reduced the volume of illegal oil transiting the Gulf. Trade in smuggling oil is the most lucrative source of illegal income for the Iraqi regime.We have made formal representations to Iraq's immediate neighbours to encourage tighter enforcement of the UN embargo, most recently with other members of the EU Troika, on behalf of the EU.We have sent messages to other regional governments, EU partners and Security Council members stressing the importance of sanctions enforcement in keeping the pressure on Iraq to comply with its obligations under the UN resolutions.We continue to raise individual cases of suspected breaches of the embargo with foreign governments. We also investigate allegations of sanctions breaking activities by UK companies.
Assassinations
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether their ethical foreign policy prevents them from taking part in or consenting to the assassination of the leaders of foreign powers. [HL14]
It is inconceivable in ordinary peacetime circumstances that authority would be granted to conduct assassinations.
Burma
asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the legal difficulties which have prevented them from imposing financial sanctions on the regime in Burma. [HL15]
Financial sanctions need to be compatible with the UK's international obligations. They are a matter for action by the European Community as a whole in accordance with the Treaty of Rome (Articles 73 (g) (1) and 228 (a)). They must also be compatible with membership of the World Trade Organisation. A mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolution would override these obligations, but there is at present no consensus for such action.
Iraq: Saddam Hussein And Unscom
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they consider that Saddam Hussein's repeated withdrawals of co-operation with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) are designed to split the Alliance and the United Nations, or to gain time when UNSCOM officials come near to discovering a major cache of chemicals or weaponry, or a combination of the two. [HL22]
Saddam Hussein is determined to force the international community to lift sanctions on Iraq without Iraq having first complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 by giving up its weapons of mass destruction. The most plausible explanation for his latest act of defiance is alarm over recent UNSCOM discoveries, such as the fact that Iraq had lied about weaponising the deadly nerve agent VX.We consider Saddam Hussein's actions to be clearly premeditated and designed both to test the resolve of the international community and to frustrate the work of UNSCOM and the IAEA. His 14 November climb-down is the most recent evidence of his failure to do either.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the presence of UNSCOM in Iraq would make it impossible to attack Iraq without warning. [HL24]
The Prime Minister has said that, if Iraq reneges on its agreement to co-operate with UNSCOM and the IAEA, it will receive no further warnings in advance of military action. Her Majesty's Government would of course carefully consider the impact of any action on UN personnel and others working in Iraq.
Eu Common Foreign And Security Policy Working Groups
asked Her Majesty's Government:How many working groups have been set up in Brussels to discuss matters of common interest to European Union member states under the Common Foreign and Security Policy; whether they will list the subjects under discussion by each group; and by whom each group was set up and to whom it reports. [HL25]
There are 28 working groups which discuss Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) matters.The subjects covered by the groups are:
- Administrative Affairs
- Africa
- Armaments Policy
- Asia
- Central Europe
- Communications
- Consular Matters
- Conventional Arms Exports
- Drugs
- Eastern Europe and Central Asia
- Euro-Med (Mashreq/Maghreb)
- Global Disarmament
- Human Rights
- Latin America
- Law of the Sea
- Mashreq/Maghreb
- Middle East/Gulf
- Middle East Peace Process
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation
- OSCE
- Policy Planning
- Protocol
- Public International Law
- Security
- South-East Europe
- Terrorism
- United Nations
- Western Balkans Region.
CFSP working groups are set up by the Presidency of the Council of the Union. They report to the Council of the Union.
Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners Of War
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the release of the Kuwaitis who have been imprisoned in Iraq since the Gulf war will have to be agreed before there is any relaxation of the economic sanctions against Iraq. [HL59]
Sanctions will be lifted once the UN Security Council is satisfied that Iraq has complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions. The Council has agreed outline terms for a comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance to date, to start once Iraq has resumed full co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. This review would be in two phases. The first would assess Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations and would also include the arrangements for onward monitoring and verification. The second phase would deal with Iraq's compliance with all its other obligations under the relevant Security Council resolutions, including those relating to Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing Kuwaiti property.
Human Rights Obligations: Compliance By Ministers And Civil Servants
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they consider the public to be entitled to expect that Ministers and civil servants will comply with the obligations imposed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, having regard to the United Kingdom's ratifications of those instruments, the guidance
Questions of Procedure for Ministers and the Civil Service Code. [HL68]
Yes.
Israeli Prime Minister's Visit: Talks
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will discuss with the Prime Minister of Israel during his forthcoming visit to London:
The position of Her Majesty's Government on the status of Jerusalem and on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem is well known. At the press conference following the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu on 26 November, the Foreign Secretary stressed the need to focus on the areas of agreement reached at Wye, and emphasised that any actions by either side that undermined Wye would not make it easier to take the peace process forward.
Food Standards Agency
asked Her Majesty's Government:What progress has been made towards a food standards agency. [HL66]
The Government are fully committed to the establishment of the food standards agency as set out in the White Paper published in January 1998. It is a matter of regret that, because of the Government's heavy legislative programme in other areas, it has not been possible to secure a space in the forthcoming parliamentary session. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Health, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and the Minister are determined nevertheless to move action forward where we can, in the meantime, in ways which do not require legislation.Since the general election, this Government have made a number of improvements to the way in which food safety and standards issues are handled. Officials from MAFF and DH are now working together in a Joint Food Standards and Safety Group, which reports directly to both the Secretary of State for Health and my right honourable friend the Minister. The group also liaises closely with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. The safety of the consumer lies at the heart of our decision making.I am holding discussions with my right honourable friends as to how we can, in practical terms, enhance these current joint working arrangements and lay further foundations for the agency. As soon as we have completed these discussions, I will make a further announcement to the House. A draft Bill will be published in due course.
England: General Schools Budgets
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will publish a list showing for each Local Education Authority (LEA) in England, for 1998–99 its General Schools Budget, its Potential Schools Budget, the difference between these two amounts expressed as a figure and as a percentage of the General Schools Budget withheld by each LEA which is outside its Potential Schools Budget, and the amount under each heading. [HL103]
The following table shows, for each local education authority in England—and for England as a whole—for 1998–99, its General Schools Budget (GSB), Potential Schools Budget (PSB), and the difference between the two expressed both as a figure and as a percentage of the General Schools Budget.
General Schools Budget and Potential Schools Budget 1998–99
| ||||
GSB (i)
| PSB (ii)
| GSB less PSB (iii)
| (iii) as % of(i)
| |
(£000s)
| (£000s)
| (£000s)
| %
| |
| City of London | 1,014 | 741 | 273 | 26.9 |
| Camden | 79,249 | 57,692 | 21,557 | 27.2 |
| Greenwich | 113,520 | 91,037 | 22,483 | 19.8 |
| Hackney | 86,018 | 66,873 | 19,144 | 22.3 |
| Hammersmith and Fulham | 52,048 | 41,307 | 10,742 | 20.6 |
| Islington | 85,895 | 64,001 | 21,893 | 25.5 |
| Kensington and Chelsea | 34,445 | 28,131 | 6,314 | 18.3 |
| Lambeth | 64,660 | 54,232 | 10,428 | 16.1 |
| Lewisham | 109,330 | 89,925 | 19,404 | 17.7 |
| Southwark | 98,643 | 74,100 | 24,543 | 24.9 |
| Tower Hamlets | 128,484 | 97,594 | 30,890 | 24.0 |
| Wandsworth | 67,398 | 51,599 | 15,799 | 23.4 |
| Westminster | 63,115 | 48,891 | 14,224 | 22.5 |
| Barking/Dagenham | 83,495 | 66,157 | 17,338 | 20.8 |
| Barnet | 104,009 | 81,654 | 22,355 | 21.5 |
| Bexley | 90,460 | 69,715 | 20,745 | 22.9 |
| Brent | 63,965 | 52,329 | 11,636 | 18.2 |
| Bromley | 58,763 | 46,490 | 12,273 | 20.9 |
| Croydon | 102,609 | 81,945 | 20,664 | 20.1 |
| Ealing | 98,117 | 76,492 | 21,625 | 22.0 |
| Enfield | 114,414 | 92,119 | 22,295 | 19.5 |
| Haringey | 109,061 | 82,173 | 26,888 | 24.7 |
| Harrow | 77,276 | 65,787 | 11,489 | 14.9 |
| Havering | 85,744 | 72,124 | 13,620 | 15.9 |
| Hillingdon | 52,865 | 45,668 | 7,197 | 13.6 |
| Hounslow | 91,914 | 79,074 | 12,840 | 14.0 |
| Kingston | 40,313 | 32,764 | 7,549 | 18.7 |
| Merton | 57,340 | 51,156 | 6,184 | 10.8 |
| Newham | 145,382 | 102,201 | 43,181 | 29.7 |
| Redbridge | 105,170 | 85,659 | 19,511 | 18.6 |
| Richmond | 51,461 | 45,585 | 5,876 | 11.4 |
| Sutton | 52,649 | 42,291 | 10,358 | 19.7 |
| Waltham Forest | 97,267 | 75,791 | 21,475 | 22.1 |
| Birmingham | 455,194 | 372,604 | 82,590 | 18.1 |
| Coventry | 136,530 | 112,551 | 23,979 | 17.6 |
| Dudley | 107,077 | 86,964 | 20,113 | 18.8 |
| Sandwell | 123,667 | 105,244 | 18,423 | 14.9 |
| Solihull | 85,799 | 71,596 | 14,203 | 16.6 |
| Walsall | 95,711 | 80,999 | 14,712 | 15.4 |
| Wolverhampton | 98,743 | 78,900 | 19,843 | 20.1 |
| Knowsley | 73,538 | 60,778 | 12,760 | 17.4 |
| Liverpool | 206,341 | 163,634 | 42,707 | 20.7 |
| St. Helens | 75,242 | 63,275 | 11,967 | 15.9 |
| Sefton | 114,630 | 101,088 | 13,542 | 11.8 |
| Wirral | 133,067 | 107,775 | 25,292 | 19.0 |
| Bolton | 105,113 | 88,324 | 16,789 | 16.0 |
| Bury | 66,052 | 54,497 | 11,555 | 17.5 |
| Manchester | 187,592 | 150,881 | 36,711 | 19.6 |
| Oldham | 106,606 | 87,639 | 18,967 | 17.8 |
| Rochdale | 76,000 | 62,175 | 13,825 | 18.2 |
| Salford | 88,464 | 74,976 | 13,488 | 15.2 |
| Stockport | 105,463 | 84,636 | 20,827 | 19.7 |
| Tameside | 81,926 | 67,743 | 14,183 | 17.3 |
| Trafford | 70,445 | 53,199 | 17,246 | 24.5 |
| Wigan | 128,279 | 105,943 | 22,336 | 17.4 |
| Barnsley | 86,271 | 65,254 | 21,017 | 24.4 |
| Doncaster | 127,157 | 108,078 | 19,079 | 15.0 |
| Rotherham | 105,832 | 91,358 | 14,474 | 13.7 |
| Sheffield | 199,424 | 143,480 | 55,944 | 28.1 |
| Bradford | 210,536 | 155,561 | 54,975 | 26.1 |
| Calderdale | 56,720 | 44,805 | 11,915 | 21.0 |
| Kirklees | 154,734 | 124,257 | 30,477 | 19.7 |
| Leeds | 315,271 | 236,073 | 79,198 | 25.1 |
| Wakefield | 137,759 | 101,999 | 35,760 | 26.0 |
| Gateshead | 82,461 | 64,514 | 17,947 | 21.8 |
| Newcastle | 102,477 | 87,297 | 15,180 | 14.8 |
| North Tyneside | 79,357 | 62,393 | 16,964 | 21.4 |
| South Tyneside | 61,778 | 51,812 | 9,966 | 16.1 |
| Sunderland | 121,183 | 100,367 | 20,816 | 17.2 |
| Isles of Scilly | 1,159 | 924 | 235 | 20.3 |
| Bath & NE Somerset | 60,779 | 52,189 | 8,590 | 14.1 |
| Bristol | 134,855 | 114,658 | 20,197 | 15.0 |
General Schools Budget and Potential Schools Budget 1998–99
| ||||
CSB (i)
| PSB (ii)
| GSB less PSB (iii)
| (iii) as % of(i)
| |
(£000s)
| (£000s)
| (£000s)
| %
| |
| North Somerset | 69,306 | 58,422 | 10,884 | 15.7 |
| South Gloucestershire | 97,947 | 81,187 | 16,760 | 17.1 |
| Hartlepool | 37,591 | 31,921 | 5,670 | 15.1 |
| Middlesbrough | 61,067 | 51,205 | 9,862 | 16.1 |
| Redcar & Cleveland | 61,848 | 52,750 | 9,098 | 14.7 |
| Stockton on Tees | 78,161 | 67,292 | 10,869 | 13.9 |
| Hull | 103,125 | 87,260 | 15,865 | 15.4 |
| East Riding | 121,492 | 100,443 | 21,049 | 17.3 |
| North East Lincolnshire | 69,802 | 58,755 | 11,047 | 15.8 |
| North Lincolnshire | 63,618 | 52,295 | 11,323 | 17.8 |
| North Yorkshire | 215,816 | 184,433 | 31,383 | 14.5 |
| York | 59,287 | 50,984 | 8,303 | 14.0 |
| Bedfordshire | 135,407 | 111,156 | 24,251 | 17.9 |
| Luton | 70,353 | 53,349 | 17,004 | 24.2 |
| Buckinghamshire | 165,367 | 124,594 | 40,773 | 24.7 |
| Milton Keynes | 73,297 | 54,414 | 18,883 | 25.8 |
| Derbyshire | 235,267 | 185,382 | 49,885 | 21.2 |
| Derby City | 72,189 | 56,127 | 16,062 | 22.2 |
| Dorset | 119,812 | 97,825 | 21,988 | 18.4 |
| Poole | 32,412 | 26,440 | 5,972 | 18.4 |
| Bournemouth | 37,298 | 30,780 | 6,518 | 17.5 |
| Durham | 200,913 | 162,648 | 38,265 | 19.0 |
| Darlington | 36,429 | 30,230 | 6,199 | 17.0 |
| East Sussex | 165,854 | 138,052 | 27,802 | 16.8 |
| Brighton and Hove | 76,967 | 66,068 | 10,899 | 14.2 |
| Hampshire | 380,745 | 328,077 | 52.668 | 13.8 |
| Portsmouth | 61,282 | 52,456 | 8,826 | 14.4 |
| Southampton | 76,883 | 64,991 | 11,892 | 15.5 |
| Leicestershire | 218,593 | 187,232 | 31,361 | 14.3 |
| Leicester City | 135,485 | 103,022 | 32,363 | 24.0 |
| Rutland | 5,353 | 4,506 | 847 | 15.8 |
| Staffordshire | 303,087 | 245,277 | 57,810 | 19.1 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | 87,424 | 73,503 | 13,921 | 15.9 |
| Wiltshire | 107,381 | 83,288 | 24,093 | 22.4 |
| Swindon | 53,783 | 44,745 | 9,038 | 16.8 |
| Bracknell Forest | 37,284 | 31,882 | 5,402 | 14.5 |
| Windsor & Maidenhead | 44,981 | 38,064 | 6,916 | 15.4 |
| West Berkshire | 44,955 | 39,561 | 5,394 | 12.0 |
| Reading | 32,142 | 26,218 | 5,924 | 18.4 |
| Slough | 30,907 | 25,470 | 5,437 | 17.6 |
| Wokingham | 52,324 | 47,684 | 4,640 | 8.9 |
| Cambridgeshire | 162,577 | 121,845 | 40,732 | 25.1 |
| Peterborough | 56,556 | 43,045 | 13,511 | 23.9 |
| Cheshire | 264,125 | 217,520 | 46,605 | 17.6 |
| Halton | 54,117 | 44,655 | 9,462 | 17.5 |
| Warrington | 73,737 | 65,999 | 7,738 | 10.5 |
| Devon | 223,219 | 177,990 | 45,229 | 20.3 |
| Plymouth | 97,335 | 83,103 | 14,232 | 14.6 |
| Torbay | 40,319 | 35,244 | 5,075 | 12.6 |
| Essex | 295,015 | 238,326 | 56,689 | 19.2 |
| Southend-on-Sea | 32,544 | 28,645 | 3,899 | 12.0 |
| Thurrock | 37,550 | 31,526 | 6,024 | 16.0 |
| Herefordshire | 55,221 | 47,324 | 7,897 | 14.3 |
| Worcestershire | 175,267 | 148,894 | 26,373 | 15.0 |
| Kent | 352,445 | 299,861 | 52,583 | 14.9 |
| Medway Towns | 78,476 | 70,832 | 7,644 | 9.7 |
| Lancashire | 432,648 | 355,489 | 77,159 | 17.8 |
| Blackburn with Darwen | 61,703 | 50,253 | 11,451 | 18.6 |
| Blackpool | 50,279 | 39,802 | 10,477 | 20.8 |
| Nottinghamshire | 283,955 | 239,817 | 44,138 | 15.5 |
| Nottingham City | 101,766 | 82,482 | 19,284 | 18.9 |
| Shropshire | 95,889 | 75,489 | 20,400 | 21.3 |
| Telford and Wrekin | 49,136 | 41,234 | 7,902 | 16.1 |
| Cornwall | 180,050 | 144,986 | 35,064 | 19.5 |
| Cumbria | 152,637 | 120,831 | 31,806 | 20.8 |
| Gloucestershire | 123,978 | 101,349 | 22,629 | 18.3 |
| Hertfordshire | 351,665 | 290,509 | 61,156 | 17.4 |
| Isle of Wight | 48,153 | 41,641 | 6,512 | 13.5 |
| Lincolnshire | 156,185 | 136,079 | 20,106 | 12.9 |
| Norfolk | 247,890 | 196,389 | 51,501 | 20.8 |
| Northamptonshire | 214,300 | 171,696 | 42,604 | 19.9 |
| Northumberland | 121,299 | 100,577 | 20,722 | 17.1 |
General Schools Budget and Potential Schools Budget 1998–99
| ||||
GSB (i)
| PSB (ii)
| GSB less PSB (iii)
| (iii) as % of(i)
| |
(£000s)
| (£000s)
| (£000s)
| %
| |
| Oxfordshire | 203,625 | 165,025 | 38,600 | 19.0 |
| Somerset | 167,292 | 140,129 | 27,163 | 16.2 |
| Suffolk | 242,266 | 207,771 | 34,495 | 14.2 |
| Surrey | 280,458 | 227,695 | 52,763 | 18.8 |
| Warwickshire | 167,185 | 138,352 | 28,833 | 17.2 |
| West Sussex | 260,755 | 223,251 | 37,504 | 14.4 |
| England | 17,550,175 | 14,309,383 | 3,240,792 | 18.5 |