|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Sue Doughty: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be (a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of (i) an exemption from the Climate Change Levy of fuel used in dual-use purposes and (ii) extending relief to certain processes to certain processes which compete with those benefiting from the dual-use or non-fuel use
2 May 2002 : Column 935W
exemptions; what steps (A) have and (B) will be taken to introduce such exemptions; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Boateng: The dual-use exemption is an integral part of the levy's design and is taken account of in published climate change levy forecasts. Customs have been considering which processes the new exemption will apply to and will be consulting industry and other Government Departments shortly for their views on which processes should benefit, with a view to introducing the exemption at the earliest opportunity. The cost of extending the exemption is expected to be negligible, but will be subject to the definition being finalised.
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the written questions asked of him between (a) 1 to 30 June 2001, (b) 1 to 31 July 2001, (c) 1 to 30 September 2001, (d) 1 to 31 October 2001, (e) 1 to 30 November 2001, (f) 1 to 31 December 2001, (g) 1 to 31 January 2002, (h) 1 to 28 February 2002, (i) 1 to 31 March 2002 and (j) 1 to 30 April 2002 that had not received a substantive answer by 30 April; and if he will state (i) the name of the hon. Member asking the question and (ii) the reasons the question had not received a substantive answer. 
Mr. Boateng: 3,255 of the 4,205 (77.4 per cent.) written questions tabled to Treasury Ministers in the present parliamentary Session up to 30 April received substantive replies on or before the dates on which answers were due. Answers have not yet been given to 36 questions, but in 14 of these cases the answers are not overdue.
Sue Doughty: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to the Treasury will be (a) at the outset of its introduction and (b) projected in the next three years of the extension of the 5 per cent. rate of VAT to apply to the grant-funded installation of (i) factory-insulated hot water tanks, (ii) micro-combined heat and power and (iii) renewable energy heating systems in the homes of the less well-off. 
Margaret Beckett: Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2001 will be published on Friday 3 May. Copies of this report will be available from the Libraries of the House on that day. It will also be available in electronic form from DEFRA's website at www.defra.gov.uk/esg.mpublications.htm.
2 May 2002 : Column 936W
Vernon Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is the policy of her Department to claim the outstanding agrimony compensation from the European Commission; and if she will make a statement. 
Margaret Beckett: We have considered the case for payment of optional agrimonetary compensation to the livestock sector. While we acknowledge the difficulties that the sector is facing and are working with them on the recommendations of the Policy Commission on Food and Farming, we have decided not to make a claim on these funds given the many competing demands on the Exchequer at present.
Mr. Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will publish its response to the draft Water Bill consultation; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Meacher: The Government response to the draft Water Bill consultation is being published today. It considers issues raised by over 150 respondents. Copies of the response are being placed in the Library.
There was general support for the aims of the Bill, although there were inevitably differences regarding a number of the proposals. The main changes that will be in the Bill as a result of the consultation are:
Ofwat's duty to ensure that water companies are able to secure reasonable returns on their capital will now be retained.
amendment of the regulatory framework to improve the position of consumers and improve regulatory certainty, and in particular to set up a new, independent Consumer Council for Water;
reform of the drinking water regulatory regime to cope with industry restructuring and the possible effects of the Competition Act 1998 giving the Drinking Water Inspectorate greater status, and increasing the level of fines that magistrates can impose; and
improvement of the regime for controlling polluting discharges, and rationalisation of arrangements for reservoir safety and the regulation of water, sewerage and contaminated land.
2 May 2002 : Column 937W
a statement on recent changes to the regulations on meat imports; and what action her Department has taken since February 2001 to prevent the import of illegal meat into the UK. 
Mr. Morley: We amended legislation on 1 May 2001 to make it easier for local authorities to take action where meat, which could have been imported illegally, is found. Legislation has been laid before Parliament which includes new powers for enforcement officers (already available to customs officers) to search baggage, etc. for illegal imports of animal products.
Since February 2001 we have taken a range of initiatives aimed at improving our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports of animal products. These initiatives have been co-ordinated by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but involve other Departments such as HM Customs and Excise and the Food Standards Agency, and the local authorities who are responsible for controls at ports and airports. We have concentrated on raising public awareness of our import rules through our embassies, and strengthening intelligence gathering and sharing to improve targeting of anti-smuggling measures. We also introduced new posters which are displayed at airports and ports to ensure that travellers are aware of the restrictions on what may be imported. On 28 March we published an action plan. This plan commits Government to a range of measures including completing a risk assessment of disease risks posed by illegal imports of meat. The action plan is available in the Library of the House.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the cost of (a) drafting, (b) printing and (c) distributing the rural proofing report drafted by the countryside agency. 
Alun Michael: "Rural Proofing in 2001/02A report to Government by the Countryside Agency", was published by the countryside agency on 11 April. Printing costs were £3,417; distribution costs were about £488 in postage and £563 to load the report onto the agency's website. The costs of drafting the report cannot be separated out from the rest of the agency's work.
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average amount of compensation paid by her Department to individual farmers as the result of the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak was; and if she will make a statement. 
2 May 2002 : Column 938W
Mr. Morley: The average amount of compensation paid by the Department to individual farmers is £124,755. A total of £1,050 million has been paid to farmers in compensation for animals slaughtered due to foot and mouth disease.
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what different types of compensation have been paid to farmers by her Department as the result of the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak ; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Morley: There are two types of compensation paid to farmers as a result of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease, they are (a) animal compensation for animals slaughtered and (b) non-animal compensation. Non-animal compensation covers cleansing and disinfecting, items seized and destroyed and claims for reinstatement of damaged property.
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much compensation has been paid by her Department to farmers in (a) the Montgomeryshire constituency and (b) Powys as the result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Morley: The statutory amount paid in compensation to farmers in Powys county is £35,601,839.00 this includes payment to farmers in Montgomeryshire. It is difficult to establish the exact amount of compensation paid to particular parts of a county or region.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total value was of road haulage contracts for the removal of foot and mouth carcases in Northumberland; what the value was of contracts awarded to Snowie Ltd; and what tendering procedure was used for the awarding of carcase haulage contracts. 
Mr. Morley [holding answer 25 March 2002]: The total value of road haulage contracts for the removal of foot and mouth carcases in Northumberland was £2,857,867 excluding VAT. The value of foot and mouth contracts awarded to Snowie up to mid-March 2002 was £37,751,894 excluding VAT. Carcase haulage contracts were awarded through the negotiated procurement procedure without the prior publication of a notice, and by competitive tendering.
Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what claims against her Department remain unsettled in respect of damage to roads and infrastructure in Dumfries and Galloway region inflicted during the foot and mouth outbreak. 
Mr. Morley: The claim submitted by Dumfries and Galloway council to the Department in respect of damage allegedly caused to roads and infrastructure in the region during operations to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease referred to in the reply to the hon. Member on 11 February 2002, Official Report, columns 8586W, has not been pursued. However, I understand that Writs in respect of such damage have been served on Scottish Ministers in relation to certain operational aspects of disease control and eradication in Scotland.
2 May 2002 : Column 939W
Mr. Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from (a) the Scottish Executive and (b) Dumfries and Galloway council for the recovery of moneys used by Dumfries and Galloway council for repairs to roads damaged by work associated with the eradication of foot and mouth disease. 
Mr. Morley [holding answer 30 April 2002]: Officials of Dumfries and Galloway council, the Scottish Executive and the Department met in January. The matter of the council's wish to recover costs relating to repair of road damage allegedly caused during operations to control and eradicate foot and mouth disease was raised. Subsequently, the council wrote to the Department indicating that it was seeking legal advice. I understand that Writs in respect of such damage have been served on Scottish Ministers. Officials of the Scottish Executive and of the Department are in touch about this.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|