| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Feb 2003 : Column 666W—continued
Big Cats
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sightings there have been since June 2001 purporting to be of big cats, broken down by county; what steps have been taken to investigate these; and on how many occasions it has been concluded that a big cat probably was present. [99220]
Mr. Morley: Big cats, such as tigers, lions, cheetahs, leopards or puma, are not native to the UK and are not naturally found in the wild in this country. There are widespread and frequent reported possible sightings but, despite investigations, the Department is not aware of any confirmed instances of big cats of unknown origin being found out of captivity in England in the last 20 years. The lack of hard evidence (such as captured animals, corpses or photographs) is hard to reconcile with the number of reported sightings, unless people are genuinely but frequently mistaken with their identification.
The Department does investigate claims of big cat sightings where there is a potential risk to possible livestock predation. Where livestock deaths are involved and it is likely that hard evidence could be obtained to identify the predator, a field visit may be conducted. However, the Department does not systematically record all alleged sightings.
Since June 2001, the Department's Rural Development Service (RDS) have had 22 cases of alleged big cats reported to them connected to possible livestock predation and where there was potentially hard evidence to follow up. There have been two field visits in relation to these reports. The counties for these reports were: Buckinghamshire; Cornwall; Devon (three); Essex (three); Kent; Norfolk; North Somerset (two); North Yorkshire; Oxfordshire; Shropshire; Staffordshire; Suffolk; Surrey (two); Warwickshire; West Midlands; and Wiltshire. In many cases the details of the report provide insufficient circumstantial evidence to justify the expense of a field visit. However, should a field visit be deemed necessary, a trained wildlife biologist carries out detailed searches for various types of evidence such as examining the body in the field for evidence of how it had been killed or checking for footprints. In none of the field visits could any evidence be found to confirm the presence of big cats.
Release of big cats into the wild is prohibited under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and possession of these species is regulated under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. If there is believed to be a public safety issue, for example from an escaped big cat, then this is a matter for the police.
27 Feb 2003 : Column 667W
Departmental Budget
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the principal components of the changes in the budget of her Department from 2002–03 to 2005–06; and if she will make a statement. [99289]
Alun Michael: Defra's budgets for 2002–03 and the 2002 Spending Review years (2003–04 to 2005–06) are as follows:
| 2002–03 | 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resource budget | 2,185 | 2,492 | 2,452 | 2,496 |
| Capital budget | 241 | 316 | 344 | 354 |
| Total departmental expenditure limit(9) | 2,426 | 2,808 | 2,796 | 2,850 |
(9) Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.
Spending by the Department in 2005–06 will be more than £400 million higher than in 2002–03, supporting a programme of reform. It fulfils the Government's pledge to introduce a significant programme of measures to move the food and farming industries to a long-term sustainable basis, to create thriving and prosperous rural economies and communities and to improve the environment. And it takes full account of the Department's lead role in promoting sustainable development across Government for the good of our citizens, both now and in the future.
27 Feb 2003 : Column 668W
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her total departmental budget is under the Department Expenditure Limit set in the Comprehensive Spending Review of 2002 in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06; and how much within each year has been allocated by activity and to each executive agency, broken down by (a) resource and (b) capital. [99287]
Alun Michael: The results of the 2002 Spending Review for Defra are as follows:
| 2003–04 | 2004–05 | 2005–06 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resource Budget | 2,492 | 2,452 | 2,496 |
| Capital Budget | 316 | 344 | 354 |
| Total Departmental Expenditure Limit(10) | 2,808 | 2,796 | 2,850 |
(10) Full resource budgeting basis, net of depreciation.
Details of allocated budgets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 will be published in the spring 2003 Departmental Report. The information will include how budgets are allocated to deliver the Department's functions and objectives.
The Departmental budgets for 2001–02 and 2002–03 do not form part of Spending Review 2002. However, budget information for these two years, by business area, is provided in the following table.
27 Feb 2003 : Column 669W
Drinking Water
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what (a) percentage and (b) gross volume of water intended for drinking purposes was tested for (i) mineral content and (ii) chemical content in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by water company supplier. [99244]
Mr. Morley: All public water supplies are tested for the most important minerals, namely calcium and magnesium and for 34 other chemicals or group of chemicals. All of the results are required to be put on public records by water companies, and a summary is published in the Annual Report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
Farmers (Administrative Workload)
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to reduce the administrative burden on farmers. [98227]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 24 February 2003]: The Government's Regulatory Reform Action Plan issued in February 2002 included 59 entries covering all aspects of Defra's responsibility. Many of these will be implemented over the next two years; others will be more long term. They involve changes to EC legislation, major reviews of whole areas of enforcement, inspection and information handling to ease the burden on farmers. We have already had some success, for example from April 2002 inspectors have been carrying out combined bovine risk analysis inspections required by the four IACS cattle schemes. We have introduced simpler rules for sheep producer groups making them easier to understand.
Some regulation of agriculture is unavoidable if Defra is to safeguard the environment, public and animal health and public funds. However, our goal is to keep regulation to the minimum and find ways of streamlining the bureaucratic burden that regulation often imposes. We have a long-term strategy (2007) to introduce risk-based environment regulation across all sectors including agriculture. New risk- assessments, standardised permits better reporting arrangements will keep charges down and reduce the bureaucracy of regulation.
We are working towards an integrated solution to the problems of regulation and agriculture by developing a whole farm approach. This is a strategy that will be developed in close consultation with industry and other stakeholders and will maximise the benefits of major investments in new IT systems, by bringing together all information held by Defra and other agencies . This will be available to farmers and growers for business
27 Feb 2003 : Column 670W
planning, and to government to streamline enforcement and tailor advice and guidance to farmers' individual circumstances.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |