---

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Betts: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each scheme so far agreed under the private finance initiative (a) capital and (b) revenue costs to public funds (i) under the PFI and (ii) estimated to have been incurred had the scheme been funded wholly within the public sector. [3816]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, no such schemes have yet been approved.

Mr. Betts: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much capital expenditure is forecast to be included in the private finance initiative for the current year and the next five financial years. [3839]

Mr. Evans: For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, it is forecast that the capital expenditure to be sought from the private sector within the private finance initiative will be nil in 1995-96, £10 million in 1996-97, £29 million in 1997-98, £35 million in 1998-99, £27 million in 1999-2000 and £28 million in 2000-01. There are also 49 magistrates' court building schemes planned for the next five financial years, for which local authorities will need to seek private finance.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

EU Agriculture Council

Mr. Thomason: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 29 and 30 November; and if he will make a statement. [4847]

Mr. Hogg: This meeting of the Council took no formal decisions.

The Council again considered the Commission's proposal to alter the calculation of the additional set-aside that farmers are required to make, in the following year, when the regional base area for arable crops has been exceeded. Other member states were prepared to accept a package of amendments to the proposal, one of which was that additional set-aside of less than 1 per cent., should not apply in 1996. I made clear that I did not support this element, because it would illogically discriminate against farmers in areas where the additional requirement fell just the other side of the line.

There was a further discussion of the Commission's proposal for changes to the support system for fruit and vegetables. The Council reached no conclusions and will return to the subject at its next meeting.

6 Dec 1995 : Column: 229

In response to questions the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, confirmed that he intended to submit his report on the treatment of veal calves in time for the Council's next meeting.

Sheep Dips

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the certificate of competence scheme for the purchase of organophosphorus sheep dips. [4848]

Mrs. Browning: Following advice from the Veterinary Products Committee, new restrictions on the sale of organophosphorus sheep dips were introduced in 1994. A requirement that such dips may be purchased only by persons holding, or employing someone who holds, a certificate of competence in their use came fully into effect on 1 April this year. I have now set in hand a review to assess the effectiveness of the scheme. The views of a wide range of interests are currently being sought on this land and other aspects of the use of organophosphorus sheep dips. A copy of the consultation letter and circulation list is being placed in the Library of the House.

The Veterinary Products Committee will be asked to review the results of the consultation and I expect to receive the further advice of the VPC early next year.

Public Bodies

Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the annual income from (a) fees, (b) charges and (c) fines; what was the total number of staff employed (i) part-time and (ii) full-time: and what contribution his Department has made towards the annual running costs in each of the past three years in respect of (1) the Agricultural Wages Board, (2) the Wine Standards Board, (3) the plant health and seeds inspectorate, (4) the sea fisheries inspectorate, (5) the Animal Health Act inspectors and veterinary inspectorate, (6) the egg marketing inspectorate, (7) the fatstock inspectorate, (8) the horticultural marketing inspectorate, (9) the terrestrial radiological inspectorate, (10) the fisheries radiological inspectorate, (11) the fisheries disease inspectorate and (12) the milk and dairies inspection under ADAS. [2752]

Mr. Boswell [holding answer 28 November 1995]: The information is as follows:

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	1. Agricultural Wages Board
Fees and charges	Nil	Nil	Nil
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£140,000	£175,000	£203,647
Staff numbers	Nil	Nil	Nil
The above running cost figures include the cost of secretarial support provided by MAFF of	£88,401	£94,103	£104,477

The board does not employ staff.

6 Dec 1995 : Column: 230

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	2. The Wine Standards Board
Fees and charges	Nil	Nil	Nil
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£159,000	£284,000	£296,000
Staff numbers	13	13	13

This body is an NDPB, outside the central running cost regime.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	3. The Plant Health and Seeds
Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£717,793	£524,854	£530,638
Fines	Nil	£1,500	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£2,820,980	£3,166,293	£3,367,492
Staff numbers	115	110	105

Inspection charges aim to cover the relevant costs of the plant health and seeds inspectorate and other services which contribute to the chargeable services.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	4. The Sea Fisheries Inspectorate
Fees and charges	Nil	Nil	Nil
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£2,215,000	£2,788,000	£2,864,000
Staff numbers	95	117	117

Records of fines imposed by the inspectorate are not readily accessible and in the time available it has not been possible to obtain the necessary details.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	5. The Animal Health Act Inspectors
and Veterinary Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£1,674,897	£1,838,261	£1,492,415
Fines	n/a	n/a	n/a
MAFF contribution to running costs	£1,674,897	£1,838,261	£1,492,415
Staff numbers	88	76	48

The inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. The courts do this but in the time available it has not been possible to access the records. The question relates to animal health inspectors and the veterinary inspectorate. No structure of this nature exists in MAFF. Therefore, it is assumed the question refers to those parts of the "Animal Health and Veterinary Group" which carry out functions of a similar nature. Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost of the service.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	6. The Egg Marketing Inspectorate
Fees and charges	Nil	Nil	Nil
Fines	£4,418	£11,680	£7,354
MAFF contribution to running costs	£1,450,000	£1,470,000	£1,100,000
Staff numbers	35	35	37

Fines are administered by courts as the Inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. In the time available it has not been possible to access the relevant records.

6 Dec 1995 : Column: 231

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	7. The Fatstock Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£494,547	£458,097	£390,987
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£428,314	£481,276	£480,069
Staff numbers	12	12	10

No fines are imposed. The Intervention Board Executive Agency commissions the work. Fees and charges aim to achieve full cost recovery.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	8. The Horticultural Marketing
Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£231,678	£252,000	£258,000
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£231,678	£252,000	£258,000
Staff numbers	3	4	6

The fees above are payments from the IBEA for enforcement work on CAP in England and Wales and work for the London commodity market exchange for potatoes. The fees above are set to recover the full cost of the Inspectorate.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	9. The Terrestrial Radiological
Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£1,379,110	£1,526,663	£1,535,375
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£1,379,110	£1,526,663	£1,525,375
Staff numbers	12	11	13

Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost MAFF incurs in providing this service. Only Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, an agency of the DOE, can impose fines.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	10. The Fisheries Radiological
Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£1,855,130	£2,274,724	£2,086,609
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£1,855,130	£2,274,724	£2,086,609
Staff numbers	32	35	35

Fees and charges are set to recover the full cost MAFF incurs in providing this service. Fines are imposed by HMIP as above.

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	11. The Fish Disease Inspectorate
Fees and charges	£2,111	£821	£606
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£534,638	£1,239,853	£1,326,678
Staff numbers	10	21	23

Fees relate to ad-hoc additional services for export certification as requested by the exporter. No charge is made for domestic or European Union certification. The inspectorate has no powers to impose fines. Staff figures in the respective years include 5, 12 and 13 administrators engaged in other parts of the fish health programme, including diagnostic work on import licensing.

6 Dec 1995 : Column: 232

	1992-93	1993-94	1994-95
	12. The Milk and Dairies Inspection
under ADAS
Fees and charges	£1,348,330	£1,267,496	£1,341,440
Fines	Nil	Nil	Nil
MAFF contribution to running costs	£1,804,560	£1,384,757	£1,392,426
Staff numbers	29	28	27

1. Staff numbers shown above include full-time and part-time employees (full-time equivalents). 2. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. 3. Except where full cost recovery is indicated, "MAFF's contribution to running costs" shown above represents cash costs of pay and work related personal expenses.

---