| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to (a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61823]
Mr. Morley: Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.
Foot and Mouth
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent representations she has received about foot and mouth spot checks, conducted by police and trading standards officers, on farmers moving stock in the Vale of York; [62260]
- (2) what recent representations she has received about the interruption of the moving of farmers' stock by police and trading standards officers conducting foot and mouth spot checks in the Vale of York; [62262]
(3) what recent representations she has received about the use of the police and trading standards officers to conduct foot and mouth spot checks on farmers moving stock in the Vale of York. [62261]
Mr. Morley: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not received any representations on this matter.
Across the country, trading standards officers, with police support, are carrying out spot checks on animal movements as part of their enforcement responsibilities for the post FMD interim movement arrangements and I know that checks were carried out in the Thirsk area on 30 May, but we have not received any representations about them. My Department is encouraging local authorities to undertake these checks, based on local assessments of risk from the illegal movement of animals.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sheep were disposed of at Great Orton, Cumbria; how many of those sheep tested positive for the foot and mouth virus; and if she will make a statement. [61603]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 19 June 2002]: During the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 448,508 sheep were disposed of at the Great Orton burial site, Cumbria.
We are not able to say whether any of the sheep were from premises that returned positive laboratory results as this specific set of information has not been collated.
Common Agricultural Policy
Mrs. Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of
26 Jun 2002 : Column 916W
payments made under the CAP went (a) directly to farmers and (b) to other sectors, with specific reference to (i) the food processing industry and (ii) storage companies, in the most recent year for which statistics are available. [60555]
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of payments made through the CAP went to (a) farmers, (b) the food processing industry and (c) other sectors in the last year for which figures are available. [62534]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Payments throughout the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy totalled 40,465 million euro in the budget year ending in October 2000. 25,529 million euro of this was spent on direct subsidies to farmers, 4,176 million euro on rural development (outside objective 1 areas), and 10,654 million euro on market support measures. The remainder was spent on veterinary and phytosanitary measures, and various information programmes.
Almost all of the direct subsidies will have gone to farmers. They will also have received most of the rural development expenditure, although other businesses are eligible for certain programmes. For example, payments under the rural development measures that were implemented in England as the processing and marketing grant scheme are largely received by food processors, although processors of non-food crops are also eligible.
The 10,654 million euro the Community spent on market support aimed to keep EU commodity prices above those prevailing elsewhere. This included the cost of export refunds (5,646 million euro), and of various intervention programmes (5,008 million euro). The cost of providing for public storage of products withheld from the market under these programmes came to some 379 million euro (excluding purchasing or financing costs); the cost of private storage was 574 million euro. Although many of the market support payments will in the first instance have gone to businesses specialising in trading or storage, these programmes will indirectly have improved most farmers' incomes.
Flood and Coastal Defence
Mr. Michael Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the local authorities who have not yet provided a High Level Target 1 policy statement for flood and coastal defence; [62908]
- (2) if she will name the local authorities who have indicated that they are not prepared to produce a policy statement under High Level Targets for flood and coastal defence. [62906]
Mr. Morley: I placed the Environment Agency's report listing those local authorities from whom a policy statement under High Level Target 1 was awaited in the
26 Jun 2002 : Column 917W
House Libraries on 24 May. Since the agency's report was compiled, statements have been received from the following local authorities:
- Mid Sussex district council
Rotherham borough council
Rushcliffe borough council
Stockton-on-Tees borough council
Teignbridge district council
Burnley borough council
Chesterfield borough council
East Hampshire district council
London borough of Bromley
Mid Suffolk district council.
26 Jun 2002 : Column 918W
Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money the Government have allocated to the Environment Agency in flood defence grants in each year since and including 1997; and what the overall expenditure spent on flood defence by the Government in the United Kingdom was in each year since and including 1997. [63819]
Mr. Morley: Flood and coastal erosion risk management is a devolved responsibility. The bulk of spending on flood and coastal defence in England comes from central Government either through the ODPM's support to local authorities through standard spending assessments (SSAs) which are intended in part to fund local authority levies to the Environment Agency, or through capital grants (and local authority Supplementary Credit Approvals) from DEFRA direct to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards). Additional expenditure is incurred by DEFRA, for example to pay for the Storm Tide Forecasting Service. The table shows expenditure for England only:
| DEFRA grant and credit approvals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Environment Agency | Other operating authorities | DEFRA other expenditure | ODPM SSAs | Total | |
| 1996–97 | 45.9 | 51.5 | 5.2 | 207.1 | 309.7 |
| 1997–98 | 43.0 | 38.5 | 5.5 | 225.4 | 312.4 |
| 1998–99 | 33.8 | 36.9 | 5.4 | 239.8 | 315.9 |
| 1999–2000 | 33.0 | 36.2 | 5.1 | 252.0 | 326.3 |
| 2000–01 | 41.9 | 24.6 | 4.9 | 257.1 | 328.5 |
| 2001–02 (prov) | 61.5 | 29.5 | 5.7 | 268.4 | 365.1 |
Notes:
1. Figures are outturns of actual cash spent.
2. 2001–02 figures for Other Operating Authorities are provisional, as credit approvals are yet to be finalised.
3. The allocation for 1996–97 was increased significantly in-year by the redistribution of funds from elsewhere in the Department.
4. In 2000–01 and 2001–02 local authorities under-achieved on coast protection works compared to their plans. They have recognised the need to improve project planning and the reliability of their forecasts.
5. In addition to the above, some £40 million annually comes from other sources such as drainage rates and charges paid by farmers.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason no preferred scheme for improved flood defences in Lewes has been announced by the Environment Agency; when such an announcement is expected; and if she will make a statement. [63548]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 24 June 2002]: It is important to consider the need for flood management measures within an overall strategy so as not to create problems elsewhere. The Environment Agency has commissioned consultants to prepare a strategy for the river Ouse catchment, covering flood problems at Lewes and other points in the valley. I understand that detailed checking of data and modelling work is being undertaken prior to the planned presentation of the strategy to the Sussex Flood Defence Committee in July prior to submission to DEFRA. I also understand that the strategy includes a preferred option for defence measures in Lewes.
I understand that the agency has consulted widely in preparing the strategy and, subject to consideration by the Sussex Flood Defence Committee, plans to arrange a public exhibition.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |