| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Intervention Beef
Dr. Strang:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing 1 tonne of intervention beef for one year, including the depreciation of the value of the beef; [9468]
23 Jan 1996 : Column: 171
(3) what is his estimate of the difference between the value of a tonne of beef taken into intervention in the United Kingdom, and the value of that beef upon leaving intervention after one year in intervention. [9469]
Mr. Douglas Hogg
[holding answer 17 January 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply to the hon. Member direct.
Letter from G. Trevelyan to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 23 January 1996:
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions (9467, 9468 and 9469) tabled for answer on Wednesday 17 January 1996:
Mr. Tony Banks:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on the under-reporting of whale species by the former Soviet Union. [10150]
Mr. Baldry:
At the meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Mexico in 1994 the Russian Federation gave details of the inaccurate catch reporting by the former Soviet Union. Revised historical catch data were submitted to the scientific committee at the IWC meeting in Dublin in 1995 and further revised information is expected to be submitted to the scientific committee at this year's meeting of the IWC in Aberdeen.
23 Jan 1996 : Column: 172
Mr. Allason:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of set-aside payments are made after the date recommended by the European Commission. [10682]
Mr. Baldry:
So far as possible, MAFF aims to make main payments under the arable area payments scheme between 16 October and 31 December, as required by European Community regulations. This year some 83 per cent. of claims were paid in that period. I regret the delay to the remainder, which was caused by the need to validate claims to the exacting standards required under the Community rules. Payment of these claims will be made as soon as possible.
Mr. Tyler:
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many of those were successfully sold as British after grading. [11213]
Mr. Baldry:
Total imports of poultry eggs in shell-fresh, preserved or cooked, not for hatching were as follows:
(2) what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing 1 tonne of intervention beef for one year, excluding the depreciation of the value of the beef; [9467]
"To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing one tonne of intervention beef for one year, excluding the depreciation of the value of the beef. (9467)
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate for the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing one tonne of intervention beef for one year, including the depreciation of the value of the beef. (9468)
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the difference between the value of a tonne of beef taken into intervention in the United Kingdom and the value of that beef upon leaving intervention after one year in intervention. (9469)"
Intervention beef is stored in commercial cold stores. The rates paid by the Agency are determined by open competition and can vary in line with changes in the demand for cold storage. The average costs of storing intervention beef for one year, including inspection, receipt, handling and delivering out charges is about £120 per tonne (excluding VAT).
For budgetary purposes the EC Regulations require the book value of beef taken into intervention to be depreciated on entry by 60% of its purchase price to bring it more into line with the foreseeable price at which it might subsequently be sold. Beef is purchased in the form of fresh carcasses which have a higher market value than the stored frozen product. Currently depreciation on entry would be £1,759 on a tonne of beef purchased at £2,932. Decisions are taken by the Commission at the end of each of their financial years, ending 15 October, as to whether further changes in the valuation of stocks are needed to reflect market price movements. It is not possible to predict the extent to which this may give rise to further costs in the form of depreciated stock values.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.
| Million dozen | |
|---|---|
| 1990 | 57.2 |
| 1991 | 34.2 |
| 1992 | 24.8 |
| 1993 | 20.7 |
| 1994 | 32.2 |
| 1995(12) | 16.7 |
(12) Year to September inclusive (provisional figure).
No records are kept on the destination of imported eggs once they have entered the UK, but we understand that the majority go for processing into egg products. We are not aware that imported shell eggs have been passed off as British.
TRANSPORT
National Rail Timetable
Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that Railtrack should be required to continue to publish a national rail timetable. [8491]
Mr. Watts: It is a condition of Railtrack's network licence that it must publish, or procure the publication of, a national timetable of railway passenger services unless the Rail Regulator consents otherwise.
Railways (Public Service Obligation Grant)
Mr. Chidgey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revenue subsidy was paid through the PSO grant to each of the rail services comprising (a) Great
23 Jan 1996 : Column: 173
Western Intercity, (b) South West Trains and (c) London Tilbury and Southend in (i) 1993-94 and (ii) the last year in which British Rail was wholly responsible for these services. [8492]
Mr. Watts:
The year 1993-94 was the last year in which support payments to British Rail were made entirely under the PSO grant provisions; in 1994-95 payments were made under both the PSO provisions and under section 52 of the Railways Act 1993. In 1993-94, InterCity services received no PSO grant. Network SouthEast--formerly responsible for the services now operated by South West Trains and London Tilbury and Southend--received no PSO grant in support of revenue, but received some £372 million of PSO grant in support of investment.
Grant payments in 1994-95, the last year in which BR will have been wholly responsible for these services, are not comparable with those in 1993-94, because the basis for payment was changed, as a result of restructuring the railway industry. In 1994-95, Great Western received £57.5 million, South West Trains £93.7 million and London Tilbury and Southend £30.7 million. These figures included administered profits of £3 million, £3.7 million and £900,000 respectively.
Mr. Chidgey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total bid for transport packages by local authorities for the year 1996-97; how much in total has been allocated in response to these bids; and how much is represented by (a) grants and (b) loans sanctions. [8525]
Mr. Norris:
Local authorities outside London bid a total of £685.586 million for major highway schemes, major public transport schemes and minor work in packages.
Some £78.7 million in supplementary credit approval has been allocated towards minor works in the 53 packages that were accepted for funding in 1996-97. In addition, £115.227 million has been allocated in that year towards major schemes in areas with approved packages, of which 50 per cent. is grant and 50 per cent. credit approval.
Ms Ruddock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", produced by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the appraisal. [10612]
Mr. Watts:
The policy advice in circular roads 3/95 was developed in accordance with the guidance in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". The circular itself makes it clear that consideration of environmental factors is an on-going process in signing policy decisions. We will consider whether to publish additional material in the light of developments.
23 Jan 1996 : Column: 174
Ms Ruddock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England". [10615]
Mr. Watts:
Arrangements for monitoring are still under discussion with other interested Government Departments, including the Department of the Enviornment.
Ms Ruddock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative courses of action from those listed in roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10613]
Mr. Watts:
The purpose of the circular is to develop existing traffic signing policy and practice in an environmentally acceptable way. It empowers local authorities to take appropriate decisions in individual cases in the light of local circumstances, bearing in mind environmental and other factors.
Ms Ruddock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10614]
Mr. Watts:
Following public consultation, the circular was modified to give greater prominence to environmental factors.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |