|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Burlison: The Government have frequent access to studies and other literature produced by Rand and other think-tanks, including those covering information warfare and the effects of malicious electronic attack. I am not aware of the specific study to which the noble Lord refers. We are not undertaking any activity relating to the Association for Progressive Communications.
Lord Burlison: Financial arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the NHS to enable secondary care treatment to be given to service personnel are set out in Health Services Circular 1999/112 of 21 May 1999. This circular details the financial arrangements which underpin MoD contracts with NHS Hospital Trusts with regard to Ministry of Defence hospital units (MDHUs) and which will also underpin all future hosting or treatment arrangements between the two departments. The MDHU contracts negotiated in this arrangement include the requirement to meet the Defence Secondary Care Agency key targets for waiting times and contain financial incentives to encourage NHS trusts to meet critical operational priority targets.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Information on expenditure planned for the next four years is contained in the agency's corporate plan approved by Ministers. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
|Royal Parks Agency £ millions|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): The issue of anonymity is a matter for the tribunal and ultimately for the courts. The tribunal in its ruling of 5 May allows for military witnesses to apply for anonymity on the grounds that it is justified by their personal circumstances. This ruling was in certain respects quashed in the Divisional Court on 17 June; the tribunal has been granted leave to appeal. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further.
Lord Dubs: It is a matter for the inquiry how to conduct its proceedings, including the consideration of questions of anonymity. The inquiry has issued guidance for the submission of applications for anonymity on special reasons. This guidance is, among other things, designed to ensure that applicants for anonymity are not required to disclose publicly information that would be likely to defeat the purpose of the application.
Lord Dubs: When the inquiry was established in January last year, the Prime Minister explained to the House of Commons that it was important to make absolutely clear not only that the inquiry was impartial but that it was seen to be impartial. That remains the case, and it is not for the Government to interfere with the way the inquiry chooses to conduct its business.
Even if the Government did want to instruct the inquiry how to operate, it would be inconsistent with the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, under which the inquiry was established, to do so. The resolution of both Houses of Parliament described the issue into which the inquiry was to inquire. But its procedures, as an independent judicial inquiry, are a matter for it. Questions of anonymity are therefore a matter for the tribunal and ultimately for the courts.
Lord Dubs: The issue of anonymity in respect of witnesses who may be called to give evidence to the tribunal of inquiry is a matter for the inquiry (subject to the courts in the event of judicial review). The Northern Ireland (Location of Victims Remains) Act 1999, which relates to an entirely different situation, does not confer anonymity on those giving information as to the whereabouts of their murdered victims. It imposes restrictions on the subsequent disclosure of information of this kind provided to the commission and provides that such information, and evidence obtained as a result, is not admissible in criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecution.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): Licensed slaughterhouse owners or operators are free to refer grievances about day-to-day operational matters to the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) regional management in accordance with the MHS complaints procedure.
Lord Donoughue: Official veterinary surgeons (OVSs) and meat hygiene inspectors (MHIs) derive their authority by virtue of their appointment by Ministers. While slaughterhouse owners or operators can observe and comment on the activities of an OVS or MHI, they cannot formally supervise or otherwise check on their activities: this being the immediate responsibility of the
Should a slaughterhouse owner or operator be dissatisfied with the performance of an OVS or MHI, they are at liberty to take the matter up with either the POVS or the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) regional management team in accordance with the MHS complaints procedure.
OVSs are required to fill in timesheets provided by the MHS so that an accurate calculation of hours worked can be made and an appropriate hygiene charge assessed. This enables the MHS to fulfil its statutory obligation of recovering the costs of providing hygiene inspections.
OVSs cannot be asked to account for hours worked by filling in timesheets provided by slaughterhouse owners or operators, although owners or operators can keep their own records.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page