asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have banned the provision of pork to British military personnel serving in the Middle East; and, if ,30, which countries if any, have demanded such a ban. [HL479]

British service personnel are currently deployed in the Middle East in Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Food supplies for these personnel are procured under local arrangements. Her Majesty's Government have not banned the provision of pork to British military personnel serving in the Middle East or in any other theatre of operation but abide by the requirements of the host nation. The import of pork is not permitted in Bahrain, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia on religious grounds and is therefore not available to our personnel.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will publish the names of the members of the Independent Panel for the Assessment of Ministry of Defence Research on possible interactions between vaccines and pyridostigmine bromide, together with their current employment and interests. [HL466]

The Independent Panel on Vaccines Interactions Research is chaired by Professor Donald Davies, Director of Clinical Pharmacology, Imperial College School of Medicine. The other panel members are: Professor J E Banatvala, recently retired from the Department of Virology, St Thomas's Hospital, London; Professor P Beverley, The Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine Research; Dr J Bird, Burden Neurological Hospital; Dr A Boylston, Molecular Medical Unit, St James's Hospital Leeds; Dr P Fawcett, Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Newcastle; Professor A Grossman, Department of Endocrinology, St Bartholomew's Hospital; Professor Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Sunderland; Dr Ian Kimber, Central Toxicology Laboratories Zeneca Ltd; Dr Norman Jones. Royal British Legion, London; Professor Stafford Lightman, Department of Medicine, Bristol Royal Infirmary; Dr Christopher Martyn, MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Southampton; Dr Elizabeth Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre, Colindale; Dr David Ray, Centre for Mechanisms of Human Toxicity, University of Leicester; Professor E M Sedgwick, Wessex Neurological Centre, Southampton; Professor A Silman, ARC Epidemiology Research Unit, Manchester University Medical School and Dr Geoffrey Schild, National Institute of Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC).In order to avoid a conflict of interest, Dr Schild is not present at any discussions on NIBSC participation in the vaccines interactions programme. Professor Hooper and Dr Jones were nominated to the panel by Gulf veterans acting through the Royal British Legion.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the normal regime for the administration of live vaccines when more than one is required; and whether this was complied with when members of HM Armed Forces were treated prior to and during Operation Granby; and [HL467]What is the normal practice for the administration of immunoglobulins in conjunction with other vaccines, particularly live vaccines; and whether this practice was complied with when members of HM Armed Forces were treated prior to and during Operation Granby. [HL468]

The Ministry of Defence currently follows the guidance provided by the Department of Health (DOH) in its booklet: Immunisation against Infectious Disease; 1996. This guidance is communicated throughout the Department as part of Joint Service Publication (lSP) 311, the Joint Services Manual of Immunological Procedures. Chapter 7 of the DOH booklet discusses indications and contraindications. The guidance given is as follows:"7.5 Immunisation Intervals7.5.1 Live virus vaccines, with the exception of yellow fever vaccine, should not be given during the three months following injection of immunoglobulin because the immune response may be inhibited. Human normal immunoglobulin obtained from UK residents is unlikely to contain antibody to yellow fever virus, which would inactivate the vaccine. In travellers, when time is short and there is a significant risk of exposure to polio, vaccine should be given even if immunoglobulin has been given at any time in the previous three months.7.5.2 If it is necessary to administer more than one live vaccine at the same time, they should be given simultaneously in different sites (unless a combination preparation is used) or in theory be separated by a period of at least three weeks. There are no current data using presently available vaccines to support this recommendation, which came from earlier observations about "take rates" of smallpox vaccination; these may have been reduced if another live vaccine had been given shortly before smallpox vaccination. It probably has little relevance for intervals between oral polio vaccine and other presently used live virus vaccines. It is recommended that a three-week interval should be allowed between the administration of live virus vaccines, especially measles vaccine and tuberculin testing; there is experience that shows that measles infection or immunisation can give false negative results in tuberculin positive individuals. No interval needs to be observed between the administration of live and inactivated vaccines."Concurrent administration of immunoglobulin and live vaccines to Service personnel who deployed to the Gulf was in accordance with recommended practice extant at the time, which was the same as current practice.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether tests have been conducted on the response of Gulf veterans to different serotypes of polio vaccine; and, if they were, what were the results. [HL469]

The Ministry of Defence has not conducted any tests on the response to polio vaccines by any Gulf veterans.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When the research on mouse data recommended by the Independent Panel of the Ministry of Defence was commissioned from the National Institute for Biological Standards; whether the work has started; if it has, when are the results to be published; if it has not, when it is expected to start; and what is the cause of the delay. [HL470]

Proposals for research into the possible adverse effects of the co-administration of anthrax and pertussis vaccines in mice to be undertaken at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls (NIBSC) were agreed by the Independent Panel on Vaccines Interactions Research at a meeting on 30 March 1999. The work is expected to begin in June 2000 and take about two years to complete.The commencement of work has been subject to delay because the Independent Panel suggested changes to the original protocol prepared by NIBSC, in view of the results from preliminary work undertaken at the DERA Chemical and Biological Defence site at Porton Down. This resulted in NIBSC submitting an amended protocol in July 1999. There have since been further discussions between staff from CBD Porton Down and NIBSC about the revised protocol. NIBSC has considerable work commitments and because of resource limitations it will not now be possible to start work before June 2000.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is their estimate of the total value of business potentially lost to British firms excluded from tenders for future military equipment orders from Chile, following the arrest of General Pinochet. [HL280].

We are not aware of any British firm being excluded from any formal competition or tender process for future military equipment orders from Chile. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle indicated in his Answer to the noble Lord on 11 January (Official Report, col. WA5), the defence export market is a long-term one and it remains difficult to make a measured assessment about the extent of any impact following the arrest of General Pinochet.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Royal Navy has had its use of Chilean ports or berthing facilities restricted or changed in any way since the arrest of General Pinochet. [HL462]

The Chilean Government has not informed us of any restrictions on visits by Royal Navy ships to Chilean ports, or of any restrictions on access to berthing facilities.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How the Ministry of Defence defines "operations". [HL166]

The British Defence Doctrine publication formally defines operations as "A military action or the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative military mission; the process of carrying on combat, including movement, supply, attack, defence and manoeuvre needed to gain the objectives of any battle or campaign". On a day-to-day basis we would nomally consider operations to cover a range of military activities which British Defence Doctrine lists as ranging from combat, through deterrence, support to diplomacy, peace-keeping, peace enforcement, home defence, military aid to the civil authorities and non-combatant evacuations, to humanitarian aid.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many courts-martial took place in London district for each of the last six years for which figures are available; and, if no figures are available, why not. [HL404]

Figures are available for the last five years and are shown in the table below. As from 1 April 1997 districts were no longer responsible for arranging courts-martial, and under the Armed Forces Act 1996, the Court-Martial Administration office accepted responsibility for arranging all courts-martial. In June 1998 five new assizes centres were formed within the UK, and three in Germany in August 1998.

asked Her Majesty's Government:For each of the last five years, how may courts-martial found the accused other than guilty; and, if no figures are available, why not. [HL405]

Over the period 1995 to 9 November 1999, 235 soldiers have been found other than guilty at courts-martial. The annual breakdown is outlined in the table below.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many army personnel in London District elected for court-martial trial in each of the last six years for which figures are available; and, if no figures are available, why not. [HL406]

Over the last six years there have been no records kept that show how many soldiers elect trial by court-martial. Once a soldier elects trial rather than summary dealing, the papers go direct to the Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) with no recorded differentiation between a soldier who elects and one who is forwarded for court-martial by a commanding officer. The APA currently estimate, however, that 5 per cent of all cases are from soldiers who have elected trial by courts-martial. In 1998, the total number of individuals tried by court-martial was 468, and based on an estimate of 5 per cent this would mean that approximately 23 were as a result of election. Work is in hand to ensure that records will be kept in future to reflect the requirement to monitor developments once the Armed Forces Discipline Bill passes into law.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What use is made of the UNICOM computer system in administering summary jurisdiction. [HL407]

Following the summary dealing process, the charge sheet and trial results are entered on a computer generated conduct sheet. The summary dealing results are forwarded via the UNICOM link to the Army Personnel Centre where the results are acted upon to implement a fine, stoppage of pay, or detention. All company level entries remain on the unit level UNICOM until they are spent. Regimental level entries are entered on a mainframe computer at Worthy Down which records a soldier's pay and record of service.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When development of the army's current UNICOM computer system was first started; and what has been the cost of the system to date. [HL408]

Following successful feasibility studies and trials, the development of the Army's current UNICOM computer system began in March 1994. The cost of the system in terms of introduction, support and maintenance, to date, is £107 million.UNICOM is a computerised Information System providing administrative support to the Army. For example, the pay of everyone in the Army is calculated on the basis of data fed into UNICOM. It has around 20,000 users and has been deployed to over 500 sites worldwide.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the incidence of marriage break-up in the Army compared to the rest of the population. [HL246]

The Army does not hold centrally figures on the incidence of marriage break-up. Various changes in marital status are recorded on an individual's personal file to reflect separation, the status of dependent children, and the stages of divorce. To compare this information with statistical data on the wider population would require analysis of individual files and against an agreed definition of marital break-up. This could only be achieved at disproportionate cost.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the Deputy Prime Minister was informed in advance, or if not when, about the meeting on 21 October 1997 at which the Prime Minister and Mr Paddy Ashdown are alleged to have discussed among other matters the possibility of a coalition Government; and [HL154]Whether Mr Peter Mandelson was present at the meeting on 21 October 1997 at which the Prime Minister and Mr Paddy Ashdown are alleged to have discussed among other matters the possibility of a coalition Government. [HL153]

As with previous governments, it is not the practice of the current Government to provide details of private meetings.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What articles in the European Treaties and what regulations, directives or decisions made with the authority of those Treaties, and what judgments made by the European Court of Justice require the United Kingdom to permit companies in the European Union, not incorporated in the United Kingdom, to donate funds in support of one or other side in a United Kingdom referendum campaign; and what they will do to mitigate or limit the effects of such foreign donations on domestic electoral affairs. [HL415]

Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) prohibits restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a member state in the territory of another member state. This right of establishment includes the right to choose the appropriate legal form of establishment. The European Court of Justice has held (in European Community Commission v France {case 270/83}) that any recourse by a national authority to the concept of public policy, under Article 46 of the TEC, in order to justify legislation departing from the principles of free movement would have to presuppose the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of the society in question. The Government do not believe that donations by a business to political parties or to other organisations campaigning in a referendum fall into this category.Under the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, incorporation in the European Union will not be sufficient on its own to bring a company within the list of permissible donors. In order to qualify as a permissible donor a company so incorporated must also carry on business in the United Kingdom. Such a company may be directly affected by the outcome of a referendum in this country and accordingly has a legitimate role to play in the conduct of the referendum.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When they expect to publish Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary's Report on the recent inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service, which the Home Secretary directed as a result of Recommendation 4 of the Macpherson Inquiry. [HL504]

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today published the Inspection Report and copies have been placed in the Library.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the practices and procedures for the scrutiny of proposed delegated legislation by government departments to secure compatibility with the obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by the international human rights covenants and conventions to which the United Kingdom is party. [HL343]

Each department is responsible for ensuring that any secondary legislation which it puts forward takes proper account of the relevant international obligations accepted by the United Kingdom.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will introduce a procedure to ensure that, where secondary legislation amends primary legislation and is not subject to affirmative resolution, written statements made by Ministers as to whether they consider the secondary legislation to be compatible with the convention rights are published in a form which enables Members of each House of Parliament to be aware of Ministers' views when such legislation is laid before each House. [HL344]

The Government have decided that, from the beginning of the current session, a Minister inviting Parliament to approve a draft statutory instrument or statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution should always volunteer his or her view regarding its compatibility with the convention rights. The Minister's view should also always be given regarding the incompatibility of any secondary legislation to the extent that it amends primary legislation; and that statement should be made in writing where the secondary legislation which amends primary legislation is not subject to affirmative resolution. It is the intention of the policy that these written statements should be publicly available. Their precise form is a matter for the Minister concerned. What will be appropriate depends on the particular circumstances. However, we have suggested to departments that one option would be a letter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will specify each occasion during the past three years in which a Minister of the Crown, acting personally, or any other person acting on his behalf, has discriminated against another person on grounds of ethnic or national origin in carrying out (a) immigration and (b) nationality functions. [HL345]

We have no records of any such individual cases. However, circumstances have arisen, as I have explained separately, where discrimination has been needed to deal with a particular situation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will specify any acts of racial discrimination done under Section 41(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 since the entry into force of that Act; and [HL346]What arrangements they have made with ministerial approval under Section 41(2)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976 since the entry into force of that Act; and [HL347]What conditions, if any, have been imposed by a Minister of the Crown under Section 41(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 since the entry into force of that Act. [HL348]

Section 41(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 provides that acts are not unlawful under the Act if they are required to be done by an enactment, or in order to comply with a condition or requirement imposed by a Minister by virtue of an enactment.Section 41(2)(a) and 41(2)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 provide that acts that discriminate on the basis of nationality, place of ordinary residence, or length of residence or presence in or outside the United Kingdom or an area within the United. Kingdom, are not unlawful under the Act if they are required to be done in pursuance of arrangements made by, or with the approval of, or for the time being approved by, a Minister of the Crown; or to comply with any condition imposed by a Minister of the Crown.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What acts of racial discrimination, if any, have been done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, under Section 42 of the Race Relations Act 1976, since the entry into force of that Act. [HL396]

Section 42 of the Race Relations Act 1976 provides that acts are not unlawful under the Act if they are done for the purpose of safeguarding national security. Records of specific acts taken under this exemption are not kept centrally.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they will specify each of the "immigration and nationality functions" referred to in Clause 1(1) of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill by describing the nature of each function. [HL328]

The main functions are:

• the grant or refusal of an entry clearance under the Immigration Rules by an entry clearance officer;
• the grant or refusal of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Rules by an immigration officer, or caseworker, acting for the Secretary of State;
• the grant or refusal of asylum in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the United Nations Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees;
• the grant or refusal of leave to remain exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules on various grounds, including compassionate circumstances;
• the decision of an immigration officer to proceed against an individual as an illegal entrant, or of the Secretary of State to institute deportation or administrative removal action against an individual;
• the decision to detain an individual under Immigration Service powers; and
• the grant or refusal of British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.

asked Her Majesty's Government:In respect of which of the "immigration and nationality functions" referred to in Clause 1(1) of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill they consider that it is appropriate and necessary to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of ethnic or national origins in carrying out such functions; and [HL329]In respect of which of the "immigration and nationality functions" discrimination on the grounds of ethnic or national origins has been practised during the past three years. [HL330]

Some discrimination on the grounds of national or ethnic origin is necessary in any immigration and asylum system. For example, an asylum claim will often rest on the treatment given in the country of origin to a particular national or ethnic group, so that discrimination in favour of individuals from such groups will be required in order to take fair decisions in accordance with obligations under international law. It may also be necessary, in order to manage the process effectively in the interests of all applicants, to give priority from time to time to particular national or ethnic groups, as was done, for example, in dealing with the cases of evacuees from Kosovo during the recent conflict and, at other times, to applicants from certain Eastern European countries making unfounded claims in large numbers.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they consider that the concept of non-discrimination, protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, forbids unjustifiable indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination by public authorities. [HL442]

The texts of the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women do not define, prohibit or explicitly refer to unjustifiable indirect discrimination. The case-law is sparse and open to interpretation. However, taken with relevant General Comments of the enforcement bodies, there are some suggestions that the concept of non-discrimination in these instruments may, to some extent, include some forms of unjustifiable indirect discrimination.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have sought the views of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Ministers and other interested parties in Scotland, about the contents of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and its impact upon areas of devolved competence. [HL444]

The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill's provisions are for reserved purposes, although some provisions make incidental and consequential changes in devolved areas of law. The Scottish Executive has been consulted and its views sought on the Bill's impact upon areas of devolved competence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 13 December (

On 20 December 1999, the Government requested the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture to publish its report of March 1998.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

me Secretary has at any time written to Mr Valdes, the Chilean Foreign Minister, about General Pinochet. [HL297]

No.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the version of their reply to the Chilean Government's representations for the release of General Pinochet, as released by Mr Valdes, the Chilean Foreign Minister, was accurate; and [HL318]Why the reply given to the Chilean Government in reponse to their representations for the release of General Pinochet cannot be published in this country when it has been published in Chile.[HL319]

I understand that the Chilean press has carried reports concerning the contents of this correspondence. Those contents are confidential to the Chilean Government and Senator Pinochet. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate to comment on the accuracy of any press reporting on that correspondence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Why the medical tests to be undertaken on General Pinochet as announced by the Home Office have not taken place. [HL320]

Arrangements are in hand for a medical examination of Senator Pinochet to take place as soon as practicable.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether Mr Lagos, the Socialist candidate for the Presidency of Chile, has made any representations, either directly or indirectly through Socialist International, for the release of General Pinochet. [HL360]

Her Majesty's Government have not received any representations from either candidate in the Chilean Presidential elections on this matter.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What advice has been given to Ministers other than the Home Secretary about comments they may make on General Pinochet. [HL362]

I refer the noble Lord to my Answers given to him on 11 November (Official Report, WA 185) and 9 December (Official Report, WA 101).

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether a doctor, or a team of doctors, have yet been agreed to conduct the medical examination of General Pinochet announced by the Home Secretary [HL428]

Yes. A team of clinicians has been appointed.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether it is permissible for demonstrators to show their disapproval of a particular prisoner on remand in one of HM Prisons by banging drums so as to disturb the prisoner and keep him awake; and, if not, why such practices are allowed outside the house where General Pinochet is currently detained. [HL459]

This would be an operational mater for an individual Governor to respond to after consultation with his or her Area Manager and the local police. The role of the police in controlling demonstrations is to preserve the peace, to uphold the law and to prevent the commission of offences. Police tactics and decisions on how to achieve these objectives are a matter for the independent operational judgment of chief officers of police. They are not matters in which government Ministers can intervene.

asked Her Majesty's Government:How many prisoners there are in the United Kingdom aged over 80; and what is the age of the oldest prisoner in the United Kingdom. [HL298]

The latest available provisional information is for 31 October 1999. On that date there were 15 persons aged over 80 years in prisons in the United Kingdom. Of these the oldest individual was aged 88 years.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What criteria are used in deciding whether a young prisoner detained during Her Majesty's pleasure has shown a significant alteration in maturity, which would justify a lower tariff than originally set. [HL427]

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a statement on 10 November 1997 about the House of Lords judgement in V and T, which set out the approach to be taken to the review of the tariffs of those sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.The statement made clear that public confidence in the sentence would not be maintained if initial tariffs were to be curtailed without very good reason or as a matter of course. A tariff should be reduced only where the balance between the public interest in punishment and the public interest in the offender's welfare has clearly shifted so as to justify a reduction. The standard required to achieve a reduction in tariff in such cases is, therefore, very high. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will, in particular, look for: evidence of a significant alteration in the maturity and outlook of a detainee over and above that which can be expected in the normal course of development in the detainee between the date of the offence and that of the review; risks to the offender's continued development that cannot be sufficiently mitigated or removed in the custodial setting; and any matter that calls into question the basis of the original decision to set tariff at a particular level.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What would be the net effect on public expenditure of scrapping the arrangements for dispersal and support of asylum seekers set up in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and restoring full entitlement of social security benefits (a) at a 90 per cent rate of income support and (b) at a 100 per cent of income support. (HL399)

It is not possible to identify the precise effect on public expenditure. The Government believe that cash benefits represent a strong pull-factor and an encouragement to those who seek to come to this country to claim asylum in order to improve their economic well-being. This was particularly well illustrated when the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was introduced. That legislation had the effect of cutting off benefits for those who did not claim asylum at their port of entry. It resulted in an overall decrease in total asylum applications of 45 per cent over eight months. Although it is not possible to make precise calculations, the Government conclude that the effect of not having a dispersal scheme (which would mean that the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers would need to continue to be accommodated in the London area, which is already under intense housing pressure) and the restoration of cash benefits would result in large increases in costs in public expenditure terms.

asked Her Majesty's Government:When they changed their minds from the policy articulated by the Lord Williams of Mostyn on second reading of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill (H.L. Deb., 15 July 1997, col. 989) that they could not support the criminalisation of offences under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in the United Kingdom domestic law. [HL294]

In the debate on 15 July 1997, Official Report, col. 991, Lord Williams of Mostyn emphasised that "the best approach to these issues is to deal with them on the basis of international consensus". The Statute of the International Criminal Court gives jurisdiction to the Court over serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; we gave this provision our strong support during the Rome Diplomatic Conference, which adopted the Statute.

asked Her Majesty's Government:On what date the government-wide audit of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights was begun; and on what date it is expected to be completed. [HL358]

It is the responsibility of every department to review its legislation and procedures for compatibility with the convention. This is a continuous process. The convention is a living instrument, and departments will need to take into account Human Rights Act jurisprudence as it evolves.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 9 December (

Every additional:100 defendants tried in the magistrates' courts instead of the Crown Court, would save £900,000;week of remand time avoided, would save £600,000;percentage point increase in the timeous guilty plea rate

asked Her Majesty's Government:What was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 2 and 3 December. [HL505]

My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Office (Mrs Roche) and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:

asked Her Majesty's Government:In view of the commitment in the Labour Party's general election manifesto that "We are pledged to … an independent National Statistical Service", whether they propose to produce legislation to honour this pledge; and, if so, in what form and when. [HL436]

The Government's proposals with respect to legislation were set out in paragraph 2.20 of the White Paper Building Trust in Statistics, published on 18 October 1999.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What are the principal differences between the United Kingdom's definition of government borrowing in the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement and that used in the European Union in calculating excess deficits; what has been the percentage of gross domestic product borrowed by the Government under United Kingdom definitions during the last four available years; and what would have been the percentage figures, using European Union definitions. [HL417]

The key indicator used by the Government for assessing the overall fiscal impact is the change in public sector net borrowing (PSNB). The measure underlying the excessive deficits procedure of the Maastricht Treaty is general government net borrowing (GGNB). The difference between general government net borrowing on ESA79 and ESA95 bases can be found in the ONS First Release, Government deficit and debt under the Maastricht Treaty, issued on 31 August 1999, ONS (99) 298.Historical numbers for both PSNB and GGNB can be found in table PSF2 of the ONS Public Sector Finances First Release for October, issued on 18 November 1999, ONS (99)401. Historical numbers for GDP can be found in the ONS First Release,

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 8 December (

As stated in the Written Answers given on 25 November (WA 15) and 8 December (WA 93), the European Commission decided on 25 June 1999 that the scheme to allow 100 per cent first year capital allowances to small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland was compatible with the state aid rules under Article 87(3) of the Treaty of Rome (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam).In common with any regional aid scheme, expenditure on the purchase of transport equipment (moveable assets) does not qualify for aid under this scheme. Restrictions are also placed on aid for certain activities connected with agriculture and fisheries; in these sectors, 100 per cent first year capital allowances are available only on investments authorised by the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland.All state aid must be notified to the Commission for approval in advance of its implementation. Article 87(3) EC provides the bases on which the Commission may approve schemes as being compatible with the state aid rules; it does not provide for exemption from the requirement to notify the Commission.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What they estimate is the value of the United Kingdom mergers and acquistions industry to the British economy and how many jobs they believe it sustains. [HL332]

The information requested falls within the responsiblity of the Director of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to reply.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the provisions of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which allows for a compensation scheme to be introduced for fur breeders, whether in general it is their policy to pay financial compensation to those whose means of livelihood is removed by government legislation. [HL192]

The consideration of whether or not to include a compensation scheme in government legislation is made on a case by case basis, and takes into account the need to achieve a fair balance between the general public interest in removing the source of livelihood and the interests of the persons whose livelihoods are to be removed.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Hayman on 10 November (

The Government accept the advice of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (JFSSG) on the reported incidents of contamination of French animal feed, which was drawn up in consultation with the chairmen of three independent scientific committees. The practice of adding sewage sludge to animal feed is repugnant to consumers and illegal under Community law. The evidence is that this occurred only in a few sites. The JFSSG will continue to monitor the situation and bring to Ministers' attention any future developments of public health concern which may require action.

asked Her Majesty's Government:What action is being taken to prevent overfishing of swordfish and bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean; and whether Spain has exceeded the limits on the taking of these species in any of the last seven years. [HL272]

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), to which both the EC and UK (on behalf of certain overseas territories) belong, is the regional fisheries organisation responsible for managing and conserving tuna and tuna-like species, including swordfish, in the Atlantic Ocean. ICCAT has established management measures, including total allowable catches and quotas, for both swordfish and bluefin tuna. These are implemented by the EC.For bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic, measures were first introduced in 1995 to limit catches to the highest level realised in either 1993 or 1994. In addition, catches were to be reduced by 25 per cent of that level by the end of 1998. For bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic, quota limits were introduced in 1982 and have applied ever since.For swordfish in the northern Atlantic, catch restrictions were first introduced in 1995 by means of a quota regime. For swordfish in the southern Atlantic, measures were introduced in 1995 to limit catches, for countries catching more than 250 tonnes per year, to the highest level realised in either 1993 or 1994. In 1998, this was replaced by a TAC and quota regime. In addition, ICCAT introduced in 1997, for northern Atlantic swordfish and bluefin tuna, a system of penalties whereby a contracting party which overfishes its quota in one year will have the same amount deducted from its quota in the next. If a quota is overfished in two consecutive years, 125 per cent of the overfished amount will be deducted. The same provision was applied to southern Atlantic swordfish in 1998.The table below details catches of the species by Spanish vessels in the years 1992 to 1998 and the quota limits established were applicable, based on information available to the Ministry.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the obligations imposed by Section 348(1) of the Companies Act 1985 extend to the registered office, being "an office", of a company as required in accordance with Section 287 of the same Act; whether the position is unaltered if the company is dormant or otherwise not trading: and whether, given that Section 744 of the same Act defines "place of business" as including a share transfer or share register office, the obligations imposed by Section 348 extend to such premises. [HL267]

A company is required to have its name outside its registered office, whether or not it is trading, and any other office or place in which its business is carried on, including share transfer or share registration offices if there are such places. The Section 744 definition of "place of business" relates to overseas companies and is not relevant to the Section 348 requirement.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they believe that the European Union's proposed takeover directive will act in the best interests of the City of London in particular and of Europe-wide competition more generally.[HL287]

Her Majesty's Government closely consulted the Takeover Panel and other City interests when negotiating the proposed takeovers directive, and secured a number of measures in the directive sought by the panel. These measures are designed to allow the UK system of takeover supervision to remain undisturbed when the directive comes to be implemented. In addition, the directive will require our European partners to put in place rules for the supervision of takeovers which respect general principles based in large measure on the UK Takeover Code. The Government believe that the directive could play a part in the development of a single capital market in Europe which will help strengthen EU competitiveness.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether the European Union's proposed takeover directive makes adequate competitive and commercial provision for trans-national takeovers of member states' companies. [HL289]

The proposed takeover directive would require member states to have in place rules governing the supervision of takeover bids for companies registered and listed in the European Union. Such rules must respect certain general principles set out in the directive, such as equivalent treatment of shareholders, and bids to be for shareholders to decide. The directive is a "framework" directive which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, gives member states a measure of discretion to take account of different approaches to takeover supervision, whilst establishing common principles and minimum requirements. This will give the United Kingdom the flexibility to continue with its present system of supervision, administered by the Takeover Panel, and will also enable the panel to adapt the code as circumstances require in the future. Under the directive, trans-national takeovers—that is, takeovers where the bidder and target companies are from different countries—would be supervised in the same way as takeovers involving companies from the same country.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether German opposition to Vodafone Air Touch's bid for Mannesmann exposes deficiencies in the European Union's proposed takeover directive, particularly with respect to European competition policy. [HL290]

The proposed takeover directive would require member states to have in place rules governing the supervision of takeover bids for companies registered and listed in the European Union. Such rules must respect certain general principles set out in the directive, such as equivalent treatment of shareholders, and bids to be for shareholders to decide. The directive does not deal with competition policy matters. These are dealt with at the Europen level by the merger control regulation. The merger regulation provides only limited scope for member states to intervene in takeovers with a Community dimension.

asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they are satisfied that the European Union's proposed takeover directive, in particular the prospect that a statute-based system will mean that takeover bids will be decided in the courts, will deliver appropriate levels of flexibility and speed. [HL333]

Her Majesty's Government closely consulted the Takeover Panel and other City interests when negotiating the proposed takeovers directive, and secured a number of measures in the directive sought by the panel. These measures are designed to allow the UK system of takeover supervision to remain undisturbed when the directive comes to be implemented, so that takeovers will continue to be kept out of the courts in the UK and the Takeover Panel will continue supervising bids with flexibility and speed as it does now.

asked the Leader of the House:What plans she has to publicise the answers to Peers' Questions and points raised in debate given by way of letters or by placing papers in the Library of the House [HL359]

Many points and questions raised in debate are of particular interest only to the Peer who raises them. If a reply to such a Question is given by letter, publicity for the letter is not appropriate.Other responses of more general interest are often placed in the Library of the House. These responses may be publicised either by the Minister, announcing in the Chamber his or her intention to place the response in the Library, or, in some cases, by means of a Written Answer, published in