| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Disabled Members
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Council what additional allowances are paid to Members with disabilities. [23352]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: None, although certain Members with disabilities are entitled to a higher limit of the Office Costs Allowance.
SCOTLAND
Further Education Colleges
Mr. Gorrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that the funding of further education colleges does not decrease in 1999-2000 because of changes in accounting for fees relating to the summer term 1999. [21876]
Mr. Wilson: Public expenditure decisions for 1999-2000, including those relating to further education, will not be taken until the Comprehensive Spending Review is completed later in the year.
Water Contamination
Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what emergency procedures are in place in respect of (a) the East of Scotland and (b) the West of Scotland water authorities to deal with contamination to local water supplies. [22482]
Mr. MacDonald:
Both water authorities have detailed emergency procedures to deal with contamination of local water supplies. In terms of East of Scotland Water Authority, these are called the Consolidated Waterborne Hazard Plan and in the West of Scotland Water Authority, these are called the Emergency Procedures Manual.
21 Jan 1998 : Column: 566
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish Parliament will have the power to refuse to implement any United Kingdom tax proposals. [23306]
Mr. McLeish
[holding answer 16 January 1998]: It would not be for the Scottish Parliament to implement UK tax proposals. Under the proposals in the Scotland Bill, the Scottish Parliament will have full legislative competence over local taxation to fund local authority expenditure. In addition, the Scottish Parliament would be able to exercise the tax-varying power provided by Part IV of the Bill. Otherwise decisions on taxation will be for the United Kingdom Parliament and Government.
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his current estimate of the costs of temporary accommodation and facilities for a Scottish Parliament in each year before a new building on the Holyrood site is completed. [23850]
Mr. McLeish
[holding answer 19 January 1998]: A number of venues are being considered but it is too early to say at this stage what the estimated costs will be. My right hon. Friend intends to make an announcement on temporary accommodation by Easter.
Mr. Gorrie:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hon. Members were briefed about the details of the proposals for siting the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood before the decision was made on the site. [23538]
Mr. McLeish
[holding answer 19 January 1998]: My right hon. Friend had discussions with all the main Opposition Parties in Scotland before reaching his final decision.
Mr. Barnes:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy regarding the recycling of information technology equipment within his Department and relevant agencies and to other Government departments or agencies; and what arrangements have been made in this respect. [23235]
Mr. Dewar:
My Department redeploys information technology equipment whenever it is cost-effective to do so. Where it is not cost-effective to redeploy equipment, it is traded in through an equipment broker against new purchases as part of our standard competitive tendering approach to IT procurement. The equipment which is traded in is generally refurbished for resale or is added to spares stock. My Department takes account of the environmental management policies of equipment brokers in deciding where to place this business.
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis the Lord Advocate on 15 January claimed that the Professor of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh, and a Queen's Counsel, had accepted money from Libyan connected sources concerning the Lockerbie case. [24486]
Mr. McLeish:
My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate made no such claim.
21 Jan 1998 : Column: 567
Mr. Opik:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the transfer of payment of SRM costs from Government to abattoirs. [20260]
Mr. Rooker:
The Government have concluded that the cost of Specified Risk Material (SRM) enforcement by the Meat Hygiene Service should no longer be borne by the taxpayer. It is in the industry's best interests that controls should be in place, that the costs should be shared fairly, and the industry should contribute towards the cost of enforcement as it already does with hygiene controls. We will be consulting shortly on the legislative proposals to introduce this change from 1 April 1998.
Dr. Cable:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from (a) consumers, (b) retailers, (c) manufacturers, (d) experts on nutrition and (e) right hon. and hon. Members about his proposals to restrict the retail sale of vitamin B6 supplements; how many and what percentage of those representations have opposed his proposals; what response he has made to those representations; and if he will make a statement. [23514]
Mr. Rooker:
Since the beginning of July 1997, the Government have received approximately 11,500 items of correspondence, many in standard form, concerning its proposed controls on food supplements containing vitamin B6. Of those, approximately 1,300 have been received from right hon. and hon. Members. No separate record has been kept of the number of representations received from consumers, retailers, manufacturers and experts on nutrition. Nor has any record been kept of the number of representations received which oppose the proposed controls. However, almost all of the letters received have opposed, questioned the basis of, or expressed reservations about the proposed controls.
The Government's response to these representations will have varied according to the nature of the representation received, but in most cases it will have included an explanation of the background to the issue and a statement of the Government's policy on it.
The Minister for Public Health and I have met with representatives of certain organisations representing consumers, manufacturers and retailers of dietary supplements and of complementary medicine interests to discuss the proposed controls. I have also met with a number of right hon. and hon. Members to listen to their concerns about this subject.
Dr. Cable:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the main findings of the compliance cost assessment recently undertaken in connection with the proposed statutory instrument relating to new restrictions on the retail sale of vitamin B6 supplements; and what estimate was made of the cost to the National Health Service of consumers being required to obtain higher dose vitamin B6 supplements from a medical practitioner. [23513]
21 Jan 1998 : Column: 568
Mr. Rooker:
The compliance cost assessment relating to the Government's proposals on food supplements containing vitamin B6 is still being prepared. The assessment will form part of the regulatory appraisal which, together with the draft regulations, will be circulated for consultation.
It is impossible to estimate the number of people who regularly take any dose of vitamin B6. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the resource implication for the NHS if the number of people seeking higher doses of vitamin B6 were to consult their general medical practitioner.
Dr. Cable:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the period for consulting with interested parties on the forthcoming draft statutory instrument on the retail sale of vitamin B6; and if he will make a statement specifying the criteria by which he will assess the responses to that consultation exercise. [23516]
Mr. Rooker:
We hope to issue the draft regulation and the regulatory appraisal for consultation in February. No final decision has yet been taken on the duration of the consultation period. We will consider responses on their merits.
Mr. Gill:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the correct procedure for disposing of over-quota dead or dying fish that are caught as a mixture of species. [23744]
Mr. Morley
[holding answer 19 January 1998]: Under the conditions set out in UK fishing vessel licences, over-quota fish must not be retained on board, transhipped or landed. Such fish should be returned to the sea. Where the discarding of fish is prohibited in the waters of third countries, any over-quota fish should be discarded immediately on return to Community waters.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |