| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 465W—continued
Covent Garden Market Authority
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual cost is to her Department of the Covent Garden Market Authority; what the value is of its assets; for what reasons it is in public ownership; and if she will make a statement. [105132]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The cost to Defra of sponsoring the Covent Garden Market Authority in 2001-02 was £65,000. The Authority's balance sheet at 31 March 2002 shows assets totalling £13,522,529.
The Covent Garden Market Authority is a public corporation established by Act of Parliament in 1961 to acquire the horticultural wholesale market then located at Covent Garden and to improve the facilities there. In 1966 a further Act made provision for the transfer of the market to its present site. Since 1990, it has been Government policy to disengage from the market. Its future is now being considered in the light of the report of the Review of London Markets commissioned by the Department and the Corporation of London last year.
Departmental Buildings
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list each building owned by her Department in London, with the estimated market value in each case; and if she will make a statement. [105131]
Alun Michael: The Department does not own freehold any buildings in central London. Leasehold properties do not have market values that can be attributed to them in the Department's accounts.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 466W
Most of the London buildings occupied by the Department are held on leases. Four buildings are occupied under administrative agreements with other Government Departments who manage a leasehold interest. All the Department's central London buildings are listed:
- Nobel House, Smith Square, London SW1
Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London SW1
9 Millbank, London SW1
1A Page Street, London SW1
Cromwell House, Dean Stanley Street, London SW1
3–8 Whitehall Place, London SW1
10 Whitehall Place, London SW1
55 Whitehall, London SW1
Eastbury House, Albert Embankment, London SE1
Crimscott Street, London SE1
19/29 Woburn Place, London WC2
Market Towers, London SW8
Ponton Road, London SW8
English Nature
Mr. Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the Answer of 18 March 2003, Official Report, column 639W, on English Nature, if she will estimate (a) the administrative cost for English Nature broken down by Government Region for financial year 2003–04 and (b) the amount spent in English Nature's Headquarters on the regions for financial year 2003–04. [104699]
Mr. Morley: English Nature's baseline Grant in Aid for 2003–04 will be £62.884 million. Of this, in so far as spending in the Government Regions, the following expenditure has been estimated:
| Government regional office | Estimated expenditure in 2003–04 |
|---|---|
| East Midlands | 1,476 |
| East of England | 2,465 |
| London | 288 |
| North East | 1,054 |
| North West | 1,909 |
| South East | 2,847 |
| West Midlands | 1,450 |
| South West | 3,789 |
| Yorkshire/Humberside | 1,622 |
| Total | 16,900 |
| National (amount spent in EN HQ on the regions) | 16,579 |
| Overall total | 33,479 |
Environment (Discharges)
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 12 December 2002, Official Report, column 435W, on Discharges into the Environment, when the hon. Member for Lewes will receive the letter referred to. [105670]
Mr. Morley: I responded to the hon. Member on 26 March.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 467W
Environment Agency
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual cost of the Environment Agency has been in each year since its inception. [105053]
Mr. Meacher: The annual expenditure of the Environment Agency since its inception is as follows:
| £ million | |
|---|---|
| 1996–97 | 562.9 |
| 1997–98 | 603.8 |
| 1998–99 | 593.0 |
| 1999–2000 | 617.9 |
| 2000–01 | 640.2 |
| 2001–02 | 702.6 |
| 2002–03 | (15)758.2 |
(15) planned
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people worked for the Environment Agency in 2002 in (a) England and (b) Somerset. [105522]
Mr. Meacher: In 2002, 10,824 people worked for the Environment Agency, of whom 301 worked in the agency's three offices in Somerset.
Farm Incinerators
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her Answer of 11 February 2003, Official Report, column 642W, on farm incinerators, whether she has received clarification from the European Commission about the incineration of specified risk material in incinerators operating at less than 50kg per hour; and if she will make a statement. [103739]
Margaret Beckett: Following receipt of an opinion from the EU Scientific Steering Committee, the European Commission has now proposed further measures to permit the incineration of specified risk material in incinerators operating at less than 50kg/hour.
From 1 May the incineration of SRM in such incinerators must comply with these measures as well as those measures already in the Animal By-Products Regulation.
Food Chain (Terrorist Threat)
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her US counterpart about (a) the terrorist threat to the food chain and (b) relevant counter-terrorist measures. [104906]
Margaret Beckett [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The Department is monitoring developments on this subject, including the actions taken in the United States, and during my most recent visit to Washington last month Secretary Veneman was able to update me on US legislation to protect the US food chain from bioterrorism.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 468W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has given to (a) food producers, (b) processors and (c) providers about practical steps to protect the food chain against terrorist attack. [104907]
Margaret Beckett [holding answer 25 March 2003]: The UK has a highly effective food supply chain, providing wide consumer choice. The food retailers have robust and resilient business continuity plans to deal with any threat of disruption. Defra works closely with all parts of the industry to ensure that Government support is provided in the event of a part of the industry needing it in order to maintain supply to any part of the chain. The Government have a range of contingency plans in place to respond to a wide range of terrorist threats including those from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials. These plans are exercised and reviewed on a regular basis.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to impose valuations for the purposes of compensation upon those affected by a major animal disease outbreak in the manner proposed by the Committee of Public Accounts. [104035]
Mr. Morley: The Department is undertaking a fundamental review of the compensation regime for all notifiable animal diseases. The review will take account of the lessons learnt from the 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease and the comments in the Committee of Public Accounts's report on the outbreak. In the meantime, the Department has set up a list of approved valuers and issued each a set of instructions. In addition four monitor valuers have been appointed to advise the Department on further guidance to issue during an outbreak of a major notifiable animal disease and to oversee valuations.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the contiguous cull policy of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. [104037]
Mr. Morley: Each disease outbreak is different and the strategy in tackling each particular outbreak will depend on its circumstances. The Government set out their position in their Response to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries (Cm 5637), including the role vaccination could play. We are consulting on a 'decision tree' for FMD control strategy and hope to publish a revision shortly. We are also considering arrangements for an evaluation of the 2001 contiguous cull.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the idea of insurance-based cover for farmers in the event of a major animal disease outbreak. [104038]
Mr. Morley: The Government have considered this idea in a working group with farmers and insurers. A combination of a levy and voluntary top up insurance could provide the basis for a way forward. Work is in
28 Mar 2003 : Column 469W
hand on detailed proposals but at a relatively early stage. The intention is to launch a wide-ranging consultation exercise in summer 2003.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the funds that DEFRA is withholding from companies who were tasked to undertake the foot and mouth disease clean-up. [104039]
Mr. Morley: Defra is withholding close to £90 million from companies who performed, or who claim to have performed, services in connection with the foot and mouth disease outbreak.
Contractual arrangements put in place by the Department involve accounting and auditing processes whereby invoices are received and must be verified, substantiated and agreed by the Department.
In this regard, Defra is pursuing actively Recommendations 12 and 13 of the NAO Report on the 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease available on the NAO website at: http//www.nao.gov.uk/publications/naoreports/01–02/0102939.pdf.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with (a) other Government Departments, (b) local authorities and (c) the tourism industry on contingency planning for a major animal disease outbreak. [104040]
Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met with organisations to discuss contingency planning arrangements for a major animal disease outbreak.
However, officials have met regularly with stakeholders including representatives from other Government Departments and local authorities and have consulted some elements of the tourism industry in order to develop Defra's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that there is greater consistency between the performance of different disease control centres in the event of a major animal disease outbreak. [104042]
Mr. Morley: As part of further improving the response of the Department to an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the existing State Veterinary Service Operational Instructions are being consolidated into a web based document, capturing and collating experiences gained during 2001. This will be available to all Defra and co-opted staff to enable a consistent response based on best practices identified during and following the last foot and mouth outbreak and will also be publicly available with Defra's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan.
In addition, contingency planning exercises are being held in the local animal health offices to familiarise staff with the required procedures and check the application of the instructions.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the protocol extant during the 2001 foot and mouth
28 Mar 2003 : Column 470W
disease outbreak which stated that local movement reduction controls were preferable to a national control. [104043]
Mr. Morley: Under EU and national legislation it is mandatory to impose a local movement ban when FMD is confirmed. A national movement ban is discretionary. The current FMD Contingency Plan states that a GB wide national movement ban will be put in place immediately the first case of FMD is confirmed.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on why average compensation values for cattle and sheep increased during the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [104044]
Mr. Morley : Average compensation values increased during the foot and mouth outbreak because, as the number of animals slaughtered increased, it was claimed the notional market value for the replacement stock rose, on the basis of supply and demand. It was further claimed as the supply was reduced, especially in some areas of the country, the market value went up. In the absence of a functioning market this is based on assumption and is clearly unsatisfactory. Under the Animal Health Act 1981, the professional valuers employed by the Department had to value the animals at the market value immediately before they were slaughtered. The issue of compensation mechanisms for livestock is under review as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish her latest advice on the use of vaccinations to fight the spread of foot and mouth disease. [104049]
Mr. Morley: Prophylactic (routine) use of vaccination against foot and mouth disease has been prohibited under European Union legislation since 1992. There is no available vaccine which can provide lasting protection against all strains of the virus.Under the proposal for a revised EU Foot and Mouth Disease Directive which is currently under negotiation, prophylactic vaccination would remain prohibited, but emergency vaccination would be an option from the start of any outbreak. Emergency vaccination would be used in conjunction with other control measures such as the slaughter of infected and suspect animals, movement restrictions and biosecurity. The Government's policy is that the use of emergency vaccination would be considered from the start of any future foot and mouth outbreak, and that preferably this would be vaccination to live.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers her Department has to enforce a national movement ban on animals on the first day of a major animal disease outbreak; and what power it had prior to the last foot and mouth disease outbreak. [104050]
Mr. Morley: The powers are contained in Part IV, Articles 30 and 31, of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983, which allow for the establishment of a controlled area. These powers were available prior to the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak and remain extant.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 471W
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department has (a) sought and (b) given regarding the closure of footpaths in the event of another animal disease outbreak on the scale of the last foot and mouth outbreak. [104051]
Mr. Morley: We have drawn up a protocol containing Government guidance on the restrictions on public access to the countryside that should be imposed in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease or other similar animal diseases. The protocol, which is based on and accompanied by a veterinary risk assessment, forms an annex to the revised version of Defra's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan to be laid before Parliament very soon. Like the Contingency Plan, it will be a living document and will be reviewed regularly.
In drawing up this protocol, we sought advice from the Countryside Agency, the Local Government Association, the County Surveyors' Society and other Government Departments. The protocol has now been published for full public consultation and will be updated in the light of the responses we receive. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the House Library.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers her Department has to call in military support in the event of another foot and mouth disease outbreak. [104052]
Mr. Morley: Procedures relating to the involvement of the Armed Forces in a future outbreak of foot and mouth disease are clearly set out in Defra's Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan, which is on the Defra website.
The Plan identifies that aid would be authorised by Defence Ministers and provided under the 'Military Aid to the Civil Authorities' (MACA) arrangements, subject to other commitments.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for the mass burial sites which (a) have not been used and (b) were significantly under used as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [104045]
Mr. Morley: Further to the statement in the response to the reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries by the Government and the Welsh Assembly Government, the Department has undertaken a review of all seven mass burial sites. It has concluded that it needs to retain ownership or occupation, and responsibility for management and monitoring, of the five operational sites, that is, those where carcases remain buried, for the next 10–15 years, or until the possibility of any potential risk to the environment or public health is sufficiently reduced.
Non-operational areas with no strategic value, will be disposed of achieving best value for money, or, in the case of the Eppynt ranges, returned to the Ministry of Defence.
As part of the planning and control process, to agree proposals for the restoration and long-term management of these sites, the Department is involved in consultation and continuing discussion with relevant local authorities, and community groups.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 472W
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the confirmed causes of foot and mouth disease, by percentage of cases. [104143]
Mr. Morley: Final checking of the sources of infection and method of spread is not yet complete. Current readily available information on the most likely method of spread for confirmed cases of FMD in 2001 is as follows:
| Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Airborne | 0.9 |
| Milk tanker | 0.6 |
| Infected animals | 4.5 |
| Other fomite | 0.6 |
| Person | 3.6 |
| Other vehicle | 1.4 |
| Swill (suspected) | (16)0.1 |
| Local(17) | 78.4 |
| Under investigation | 9.8 |
(16) Less than one case
(17) Local is defined as spread between infected premises with 3 km of each other where more than one possible conveyor of infection has been identified including people, vehicles and machines
Note:
Does not add up to 100.00 per cent. due to roundings
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |