|Previous Section||Home Page|
Mr. Trippier : Before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment includes a monument in the schedule that he maintains under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, he consults English Heritage. English Heritage's major programme of re- survey work, known as the monuments protection programme, is now under way. It is expected to run for some 10 years or so and could lead to an increase in the number of scheduled monuments in England from 13,000 to approximately 60,000. The object of the programme is to identify further or redefine monuments of national importance which should be protected by statutory controls ; and to collect up-to-date information to assist in their future use and management.
My right hon. Friend is now considering the first batch of 200 monuments recommended for scheduling by English Heritage. These cover monuments in the Salisbury Plain training area. To qualify for scheduling, monuments must be of national importance. Each case is considered on its merits. Because the characteristics which make a monument of national importance and worthy of scheduling are not always readily visible, its identification, and the subsequent decision whether or not to include it in the schedule, are matters for informed judgment in the light of professional advice given by English Heritage. The criteria on which the judgment is formed were first announced on 22 November 1983 and I now restate them : (i) Period : all types of monuments that characterise a category or period should be considered for preservation.
(ii) Rarity : there are some monument categories which in certain periods are so scarce that all surviving examples which still retain some archaelogical potential, should be preserved. In general, however, a selection must be made which portrays the typical and commonplace as well as the rare. This process should take account of all aspects of the distribution of a particular class of monument, both in a national and a regional context.
(iii) Documentation : the significance of a monument may be enhanced by the existence of records of previous investigation or, in the case of more recent monuments, by the supporting evidence of contemporary written records.
(iv) Group Value : the value of a single monument (such as a field system) may be greatly enhanced by its association with related contemporary monuments (such as a settlement and cemetery) or with monuments of different periods. In some cases, it is preferable to protect the complete group of monuments, including associated and adjacent land, rather than to protect isolated monuments within the group.
(v) Survival/Condition : the survival of a monument's archaeological potential both above and below ground
Column 68is a particularly important consideration and should be reassessed in relation to its present condition and surviving features. (vi) Fragility/Vulnerability : highly important archaeological evidence from some field monuments can be destroyed by a single ploughing or unsympathetic treatment ; vulnerable monuments of this nature would particularly benefit from the statutory protection which scheduling confers. There are also standing structures of particular form or complexity whose value can again be severely reduced by neglect or careless treatment and which are similarly well suited to protection by scheduled monument legislation, even if these structures are already listed historic buildings.
(vii) Diversity : some monuments may be selected for scheduling because they possess a combination of high quality features, others because of a single important attribute.
(viii) Potential : on occasion, the nature of the evidence cannot be specified precisely, but it may still be possible to document reasons anticipating its existence and importance and so to demonstrate the justification for scheduling. This is usually confined to sites rather than upstanding monuments.
Mr. Trippier : None. This matter was not formally discussed at the CITES conference. I shall, however, be interested in the outcome of any discussions on this issue between the International Council for Bird Preservation, which proposed it, and the pet trade.
Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the check list scheme contained in the resolution on the shipment of live animals passed at the seventh CITES conference ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Trippier : We support in principle efforts to improve transport conditions for live animals, and in the light of CITES conference resolution 7.13, are considering what further steps may be necessary to supplement the existing substantial safeguards which already operate in the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Porter : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the working of the Commons Registration Act 1965 ; and when he expects to bring forward proposals to amend it.
Mr. Trippier : We recognise, as did the Common Land Forum, that there are deficiencies in the Commons Registration Act 1965. For our legislative intentions, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 27 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), ( Official Report, Vol. 162, column 89 ).
Mr. Gow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the resident population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment ; how he arrived at the size of the resident population ; to what extent and at what date the figure for the size of the resident population is accurate ; whether he and the Eastbourne borough council
Column 69agree on the size of the resident population ; and what representations he has received on this subject from the borough council.
Mr. Chope : The resident population of the borough of Eastbourne used for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment is 80,353. This figure is arrived at in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) and is the estimate of the registrar general for England and Wales of the resident population at 30 June 1988. I believe that this is the best information available for this purpose, being compiled on a consistent and impartial basis and providing the necessary breakdown between age groups. The community charges registration officer for Eastbourne has reported a figure of 67,903 as being the number of persons registered as subject to pay the personal community charge, with an adjustment for students, and estimated to pay collective community charge contributions at 1 December 1989. Eastbourne borough council has made representations that the figures from its community charges register should be used for the purpose of calculating its standard spending assessment in place of the registrar general's estimate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considered these representations before he made the distribution report but decided not to make the change suggested.
Mr. Gow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist for altering the standard spending assessment of a borough council for the year ending 31 March 1991 where it is discovered that the figure taken as the size of the resident population turns out to be misleading.
Mr. Chope : The standard spending assessment for each borough council, as for other councils, has been calculated in accordance with the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England). The use of resident population figures calculated on a different basis from that specified in that report would require the making of an amendment report. If representations were made to that effect, my right hon. Friend would take them into account in considering whether to make an amendment report.
Mr. Chope : Yes, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for class XX vote 18 will be increased by £11,725,000 from token provision of £1,000 to £11,726, 000. A reduction of £3,960,000 was made in the main Estimate from provision of £791,436,000 to compensate for the cash limit breach on this vote in 1988-89, which resulted in an excess vote of £9,200,000. Against this, increases are needed to finance the acquisition of freehold and long leasehold office accommodation and increased rents payments, to offset a shortfall in capital receipts, and to finance additional expenditure on the parliamentary and the royal parks and palaces works programmes. The increase will be charged to the reserve.
Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those county authorities which have requested assistance from his Department following the storm of 25 January ; and if he will list the SSA for each authority.
Mr. David Hunt : No local authority has yet made a formal request for assistance, but in view of the obviously serious nature of the storm, the Government announced on 25 January that special financial assistance would be made available.
Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the isolation of a county from its neighbours in extreme weather conditions is a factor which was considered in calculating SSAs.
Mr. David Hunt : This was not a factor considered. Although the Isle of Wight councils provided a paper which argued their case for recognition of extra costs that they claimed by virtue of separation from the mainland, isolation in extreme weather conditions was not a factor which entered the case that they put forward.
Mr. Barry Field : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement authorising those counties affected by the storm of 25 January to repair the damage under the Bellwin rules.
Mr. Latham : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in giving accreditation to third party certification bodies dealing with product conformity under the construction products directive ; and whether he will make a statement.
Mr. Chope [holding answer 24 January 1990] : The British Board of Agre ment was designated on 22 November 1989 to issue European technical approvals. It will also act as the spokesman for the United Kingdom in the European organisation of technical approval bodies to be set up under the construction products directive.
My Department is discussing with representatives of the construction industry, the European Commission and other member states, the appropriate arrangements for accreditation under the directive. We are also exploring with the National Measurement Accreditation Service and the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies how they might assist my Department in designating testing laboratories and certification bodies.
Mr. Gow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the relevant population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose of calculating entitlement to revenue support grant ; and how he arrived at the figure for the relevant population
(2) what representations he has received from ; the Eastbourne borough council about the size of the relevant population of the borough of Eastbourne for the purpose
Column 71of calculating revenue support grant for the year ending 31 March 1991 ; and whether he is satisfied that the figure for the size of the relevant population is as accurate as possible.
Mr. Chope [holding answer 26 January 1990] : The relevant population for the borough of Eastbourne for 1990-91 is 67,903. This figure has been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Population Report (England) approved by the House on 18 January. For Eastbourne, the calculation is based on data provided and certified by the community charges registration officer for the borough, and I have no reason to believe that the figure is not accurate. I have received no representations about the size of the relevant population. The treasurer did, however, make representations about the estimates of population used in calculating standard spending assessments, which are derived from a different source. These representations were considered before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England).
Mr. Gow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures exist for altering the distribution of revenue support grant for a district council for the year ending 31 March 1991 where it is discovered that an error has been made in assessing the size of the relevant population.
Mr. Chope [holding answer 26 January 1990] : The relevant population for each district council for 1990-91 has been calculated in accordance with the Population Report (England). I am not aware of any errors having been made in this calculation. If any errors were discovered, my right hon. Friend would consider what action was necessary, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Gow : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the level of the community charge in the borough of Eastbourne and in the district of Wealden on the basis of figures published by him on 11 January ; and what is his estimate of overspending by Eastbourne and by Wealden for adults for the current year.
Mr. Chope [holding answer 26 January 1990] : On the basis of the assumptions used for the revenue support grant settlement, the community charge for 1990-91 would be £298 in Eastbourne and £270 in Wealden. In 1989-90 Eastbourne's reported budgeted total expenditure is £919,000 more than its grant-related expenditure assessment, and Wealden's expenditure is £727,000 more than its GRE. Expressed as amounts per adult using the relevant population for 1990-91, these figures are £14 and £7 respectively.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list all grant offers and section 3A repair grant offers made by English Heritage for each year from 1984-85 to 1989-90, broken down by recipient organisation ;
(2) if he will list total grant offers made by English Heritage from 1984- 85 to 1989-90, broken down by
Column 72category of grant, further subdividing section 3A repair grants between church and secular grants and showing each category as a proportion of the annual total ;
(3) what is English Heritage's salary bill for 1984-85 to 1990-91 in real terms and for each year, as a proportion of grant in aid ; (4) what is the total staff complement of English Heritage for 1984-85 to 1989-90 and the estimates to 1992-93 ;
(5) what proportion of grant in aid was (a) offered and (b) paid by English Heritage in grants from 1984-85 to 1990-91 ; (6) what was the Government's grant in aid to English Heritage in real terms from 1984-85 to 1992-93 ;
(7) what were English Heritage's operating costs from 1984-85 to 1990-91, broken down by category and showing each category as a proportion of the annual total.
Mr. Trippier [holding answer 26 January 1990] : The detailed breakdown of expenditure on building repair grants, salaries and operating costs, and information on staff complement are matters for English Heritage. I have asked the chairman, Lord Montagu, to write to the hon. Member. Government grant in aid to English Heritage is as follows :
|Cash |Real terms at |1990-91 |prices -------------------------------------------------------- 1984-85 |49.9 |68.9 1985-86 |52.2 |68.5 1986-87 |60.1 |76.3 1987-88 |65.3 |78.7 1988-89 |66.2 |74.4 1989-90 |72.4 |76.0 1990-91 |78.0 |78.0
Grant in aid for 1991-92 and subsequent years is allocated provisionally and is subject to revision during the appropriate year's public expenditure survey.
Mr. Madden : To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the past year have applied for a start-up grant, following advice from the Bradford enterprise centre ; when applications were submitted to him ; when he is going to take decisions on those applications ; and if he will make a statement.
The Bradford enterprise centre provides a range of assistance and support for new and expanding businesses including start-up grants, which are available from a number of sources. No details are available on the numbers of people who may have applied for start-up assistance following advice from the centre, or of the outcome. As part of Bradford metropolitan district council's inner area programme, the Government do, however, fund a business development scheme, which offers start-up grants of up to £2,000 to applicants who meet agreed criteria. For this particular start-up scheme, there have been 47 applications in the current financial year. Thirty applications were received on 10 July 1989 and decisions on 28 of these were issued by the Department on 21 July. One was subsequently withdrawn and the remaining
Column 73application was determined in September on receipt of further information. Following the satisfactory conclusion on 8 January of discussions about the detailed operation of the scheme, the Department is now able to consider the 17 further applications received in November. Decisions can be expected shortly.
|Number ------------------------------------- 1987 England Cheshire |2 Cornwall |2 Gloucestershire |1 Greater Manchester |1 Lancashire |8 North Yorkshire |3 Shropshire |2 Somerset |1 West Yorkshire |3 |-- Total |23 |-- Wales Clywd |6 Gwent |1 Gwynedd |5 Powys |2 |-- Total |14 |-- 1988 England Cheshire |4 Cornwall |2 Derbyshire |2 Devon |3 Dorset |3 Gloucestershire |1 Hereford and Worcester |1 Lincolnshire |2 Shropshire |3 Somerset |4 Warwickshire |1 |-- Total |26 |-- Wales Clwyd |1 Gwent |1 Gwynedd |3 Mid Glamorgan |3 Powys |1 |-- Total |9 |-- 1989 England Cambridgeshire |1 Essex |1 Avon |1 Cornwall |15 Devon |15 Dorset |4 Somerset |10 Wiltshire |3 Cheshire |1 Derbyshire |1 Hereford and Worcester |3 Shropshire |2 Staffordshire |3 |-- Total |60 |-- Wales Clwyd |2 Dyfed |1 Gwynedd |1 Powys |1 |-- Total |5
Mr. Spearing : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, 4Fisheries and Food when he received a document from the Soil Association entitled "20 per cent. of Britain Organic by the Year 2000" ; what steps he has taken, or plans to take to assess the practicality of the proposals it contains ; and what reply he has sent to the Soil Association.
Mr. Curry : I have not received from the Soil Association a copy of the document to which the hon. Member refers, although I am aware of it. In my reply on 16 January to a question from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) I referred to the steps being taken by the Government to encourage organic farming ( Official Report columns 215-16).
Mr. Maclean : Not for the present. I need to await developments in the European Community concerning proposals for the quantitative declaration of characterising ingredients of foodstuffs and the possible extension of the existing directive on minced meat to domestic production, both of which issues are likely to be discussed in the next few months.
Mr. Maclean : The Food Advisory Committee (FAC), in its review of the Colouring Matter in Food Regulations 1973, discussed the need for colours to be added to food. It concluded that the responsible use of colours continues to have a role in providing consumers with a choice of attractively presented foods. It also, however, recommended stricter controls on their use including an extension to the list of foods which currently must not contain added colours. I announced in the House on 29 November last year the Government's acceptance of the FAC's recommendations. I therefore refer the hon. Member to
Column 75the committee's final report on the review and its response to comments received on its final report, copies of which have already been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Maclean : Sheep offal is subject to the prohibition on the use of ruminant-derived protein in ruminant feedstuffs as these species may be susceptible to the scrapie agent. There is no evidence to suggest that it poses a risk to non-ruminant species such as pigs and poultry.
Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 20 December 1989, Official Report, column 300, what further steps he has taken to ensure that the requirements relating to the import of captive birds are being fulfilled.
Mr. Maclean : The review of post-import quarantine arrangements is continuing. Visits by veterinary staff to major exporting countries and meetings with representatives of the bird trade and conservation organisations are being arranged. I have written to the airlines emphasising the need for proper care in transporting birds.
Mr. Amos : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions are being made in all the offices and other places under his Department's control for the convenience and comfort of non-smokers ; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for non-smokers.
Mr. Curry : Restrictions on smoking already apply at certain buildings. The Department's aim is to establish a non-smoking regime at each of its buildings but with facilities for smokers. We are progressively moving towards this position.
Dr. David Clark : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many (a) cattle and (b) sheep are restricted, as a result of lead- contaminated animal feed ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Maclean : I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), Official Report, 24 January, columns 769-70 . Details of numbers of individual animals under restriction are not held centrally.
Dr. David Clark : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the countries in which restrictions are still imposed as a result of lead-contaminated animal feed ; and, in each country, how many farms are under restriction.
Mr. Maclean : There are 1,512 farms still under restriction in England and a further 156 in Wales. The only other country known to have been affected was the Netherlands where I understand that one farm is still subject to restrictions.
Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to increase hill livestock compensatory allowances by at least £3 per head ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the economic impact of the European Economic Community restrictions on live cattle exports in the British beef and dairy industries.
Mr. Curry : The restrictions that the Commission is expected to adopt would, if in force in 1988, still have allowed the export of 249,000 (94 per cent.) of the 266,000 live cattle and calves exported in that year. The most important effect of the restrictions is likely to be on exports of breeding animals which were some 7,000 head and worth about £5 million in 1988.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the legal basis for the decision of the European Economic Community to ban the import of live cattle (a) born prior to June 1988 and (b) over six months of age.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide details of restrictions imposed on the human consumption of bovine offal by the EEC member states other than the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the new non-price support measures proposed by the Commission which he questioned at the Council of Ministers' meetings on 22 and 23 January.
Column 77Mr. Curry : The principal non-price elements proposed by the Commission as part of its price proposals are :
An aid for small arable producers, defined as producers with not more than 20 hectares of land who derive the main part of their income from cereals, oilseeds and pulses ;
An aid to encourage the production of millet, canary seed and buckwheat ;
The extension of suckler cow premium to suckler cows owned by small milk producers, who are defined as producers with a quota of not more than 60,000 kg a year ;
The introduction of a Community financed scheme for the purchase of milk quota from producers undertaking to cease milk production altogether. The quota obtained would be reallocated by the member state concerned to producers in less favoured and mountainous areas, to bring their quotas up to no more than 60,000 or 100,000 kg a year respectively ;
An increase of 4 ecu in the rate of annual ewe premium in less-favoured areas.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what certificates are currently required by France, West Germany and Israel to accompany meat and bone meal exports from the United Kingdom ; and if he will list those other countries which have made representations to him concerning the quality of such exports ; (2) what representations he has received from other countries regarding the quality of meat and bone meal being exported from the United Kingdom.
West Germany--application must be made to the appropriate Land authority for an import permit. This will state the particular certification which is required in each case. The Ministry is unaware that any application has been made and is not aware of any conditions which individual Laender may stipulate ; and
Israel--that the meal is derived from poultry.
I have received no representations about the quality of United Kingdom exports.
Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimate of the Southwood committee for the likely weekly maximum of new reported cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy ; and at what weekly level new cases are currently being reported.