| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Written Answers
Wednesday, 4th April 2001.
Agriculture: Terrorist Threat
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
- In the light of the current foot and mouth outbreak, what is their evaluation of the vulnerability of agriculture to agro-biological warfare; and what arrangements are they making in their defence policy to deal with any such vulnerability.[HL1316]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): Her Majesty's Government are alert to the potential threat to the UK of all forms of chemical and biological warfare. Contingency plans are maintained to minimise the consequences in the event of an attack. The most effective defence against the terrorist threat is good intelligence, efficient procedures to contol the entry of people and materials into the UK, and the means to respond effectively to incidents.
This threat is being considered by an interdepartmental group led by the Home Office and including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Defence with a remit to establish the vulnerabilities, threats and risk to the UK as a whole. Planning assumptions will be reconsidered in the light of the results of these considerations.
Brain Tissue Transplant Treatment for Parkinson's Disease
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many patients with Parkinson's disease were treated by the late Professor Edward Hitchcock of the Midlands Centre for neurosurgery and neurology, Birmingham, by transplanting foetal tissue into the brain.[HL1481]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): Professor Hitchcock performed 55 brain tissue transplant procedures on patients with Parkinson's disease whilst at the Midland Centre for Neurosurgery and Neurology prior to its amalgamation into the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust early in 1996.
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What was the origin of the foetal tissue used in experimental operations on Parkinson's disease by Professor Edward Hitchcock; and whether the biological parents of the foetus were made aware of its use.[HL1482]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The foetal tissue used in experimental operations on Parkinson's disease by Professor Hitchcock was obtained from aborted foetuses. Consent was obtained from the biological mothers.
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What assessement has been made of the efficacy of the use of foetal tissue or stem cell tissue transplantation in the treatment of Parkinson's disease or Huntington's chorea; and at what hospitals or institutes this technique has so far been practised; and[HL1483]
What evidence there is that the use of embryonic stem cell tissue may be more efficacious in the treatment of Parkinson's disease than the transplant of foetal tissue.[HL1486]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Chief Medical Officer's Report, Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility, published last year, considered the potential of embryonic stem cells as a source of new tissues for the treatment of Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. Such research is at a very early stage and it may be several years before therapeutic benefits are available.
The Government are not aware of any hospital or institute currently involved in research using embryonic stem cell tissue in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease in the United Kingdom.
Wythenshawe Hospital Heart Transplant Unit
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will respond to the letter from Professor David Harnden (a copy of which was sent by Lord Morris of Manchester to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) about the future of the Wythenshawe Hospital Transplant Centre; and whether they will place their response in the Library of the House. [HL1526]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We will respond to the letter from Professor David Harnden. The substance of the reply is on record. (Adjournment Debate in another place, Official Report, 27 March 2001, cols. 229WH-236WH).
Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists: Ministerial Meeting
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What response there has been from the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists to the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath's indication, during the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill on 15 March, that he would be happy to meet
- representatives of the society to discuss issues associated with the Feet First report; and whether they expect the meeting to take place soon. [HL1527]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have agreed to meet the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists and we are awaiting their response.
Nigerian State Funds: Requests to Freeze
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether, following the explanation given to them by the Nigerian authorities of the limited scope of Decree 53 of 1999, which concerns only the forfeiture of assets of certain persons in relation to the Ajaokuta claims, they are now in a position to help the Nigerian Government to freeze bank accounts controlled by the Abacha family and their associates.[HL1496]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): Her Majesty's Government confirm that they received on 21 March 2001 a response from lawyers acting on behalf of the Government of Nigeria to the queries raised by them in September 2000. These are now being considered by Counsel acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, who will advise the Secretary of State in due course.
Her Majesty's Government remain anxious to assist the Government of Nigeria and welcome the responses now received. They emphasise however that any action they take must be in accordance with United Kingdom domestic law in relation to such assistance.
European Union Common Policies and Departmental Responsibilities
Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will list those departments of state whose policies are not subject to common policies adopted by the European Union.[HL737]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): All government departments have responsibility for some policy areas which are covered by common policies adopted by the European Union.
Israeli Blockades in West Bank and Gaza
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they and their European Union partners are discussing the blockades in the West Bank and Gaza, and in particular the cutting off of roads to Bir Zeit University, with the Government of Israel; if so, with what result; and whether they consider that the blockades constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and of other bilateral agreements.[HL1220]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We regularly discuss the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories with our European Union partners. These discussions often focus on the Israeli policy of closures and the serious concerns we have about this policy on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. The Stockholm European Council reaffirmed the EU's position that Israel must lift the closures.
It is hard to justify the closures purely on security grounds, as Israel has argued. The closures radicalise the Palestinian population and fuel violence in the Occupied Territories. They cannot, therefore, achieve their stated purpose.
The internal closures are also imposed as a collective punishment. Both Prime Minister Sharon and Foreign Minister Peres have made clear that closures will be lifted in areas where there is no violence and strictly imposed where violence continues. The external restrictions, especially on the import of building materials and the export of agricultural products, would also seem to have no relevance to the maintenance of security. Collective punishments are prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
We have called upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949.
European Security and Defence Policy: NATO Access
Lord Shore of Stepney asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale on 19 March (WA 121), what is the difference between "guaranteed access" and the "presumption of availability" in respect of NATO assets; and whether they will list those NATO "capabilities and common assets" to which reference is made in the Answer. [HL1398]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Guaranteed access to NATO's planning capabilities means that the EU will have guaranteed permanent access to NATO's planning capacities without case-by-case NATO authorisation.
Presumption of availability in respect of other NATO assets and common capabilities means that NATO will in principle be ready to provide such support, but will decide case-by-case on the release of assets for an EU-led operation. A list of the relevant capabilities and common assets has not yet been drawn up.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page