| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Jun 2003 : Column 875W—continued
Cetaceans
Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether recent trials of separator grids to reduce cetacean deaths will be replicated next year during the peak of the bass fishing season. [117195]
Mr. Morley: The preliminary results of the recent trial of separator grids to reduce cetacean bycatch in the offshore bass fishery demonstrated that a viable means of minimising dolphin bycatch in this fishery can be attained very soon. A fuller analysis of the data from the trial is now being undertaken which will be made available on the Defra website and placed in the House of Commons library.
On the basis of these results I am determined to move forward from trialling the separator grid to deploying the gear in the fishery. I will be discussing how this can be achieved with the industry and our researchers, the Sea Mammal Research Unit, and whether other adaptations to the fishing gear, such as changes to fishing methods, could also contribute to bycatch reduction.
Ms Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the British Government has taken to persuade the US to stop military sonar testing which may harm or kill dolphins and whales. [115346]
Mr. Ingram: The Government takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously. Research on this issue has, therefore, been set in hand and is continuing. Military sonar testing by the US is a matter for them. However, we do exchange information with other countries (the US in particular) so that we have the best possible understanding of the effects of noise on marine mammals, and how we might employ sonar so as to minimise the risk of harm.
Biofuels
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates the Government has received for the level of duty on biofuels that would be necessary to make the cultivation of these non-fuel crops profitable for British farmers; and if she will make a statement. [117138]
John Healey: I have been asked to reply.
Although biofuels may offer new market opportunities to farmers producing non-food crops, assisting farmers is not the primary consideration in determining the appropriate level of duty for such fuels. Duty rates for less environmentally-damaging fuels are set relative to the main road fuels. The differentials we have set for bioethanol and biodiesel are intended mainly to reflect the relative environmental impacts of the fuels in question.
Common Agricultural Policy
Mr. Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the CAP Mid-Term Review. [113961]
11 Jun 2003 : Column 876W
Mr. Morley: Commission proposals for reform of the CAP are under active discussion, most recently at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26 to 27 May 2003, and subsequent meetings at official level. We expect these discussions to reach a critical stage at the Agriculture Council beginning on 11 June 2003.
We are working hard for a positive outcome from that meeting which will benefit farmers, consumers, taxpayers, the rural economy, the environment and developing countries, and put the EU in a strong position to negotiate a successful outcome at the next round of WTO talks in September 2003.
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to remove the 10 per cent. set-aside obligation on farmers. [115213]
Mr. Morley: The 10 per cent. set-aside obligation on farmers is a condition of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support arrangements for the arable sector.
In discussion of the European Commission's current CAP reform proposals we have made clear that we do not see a case for a continuing compulsory set-aside requirement if the full decoupling of support from production is agreed. But if set-aside is to be retained, we would want it to be operated flexibly in order to maximise the possible wider benefits.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 mapping exercise was up until 31 May; and what the budgeted cost was. [118170]
Alun Michael: By the end of May 2003, the Countryside Agency had spent £15.7 million on implementing Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, mostly on mapping open countryside and registered common land. This figure covers all costs of the project, including staff, appeals and publicity costs (as required by the Act) and include accruals for mapping work completed but not yet invoiced. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate had spent £1.65 million to the end of May on dealing with appeals against the inclusion of land on provisional maps.
By the end of March 2003 the Countryside Agency had spent £13.5 million on implementing Part 1 of the Act against a budget of £12.7 million up until the end of March 2003. The budget for the project is kept under review and revised regularly.
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated total cost of mapping the countryside under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was in (a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) to date; and if she will make a statement. [118349]
Alun Michael: By the end of May 2003, the Countryside Agency had spent a total of £15.7 million on implementing Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, mostly on mapping open countryside and registered common land. This figure includes expenditure of £2.5 million in 2000–01; £3.4 million in
11 Jun 2003 : Column 877W
2001–02; £7.6 million in 2002–03 and £2.2 million in 2003–04 and covers all costs of the project, including staff, appeals and publicity costs (as required by the Act) and include accruals for mapping work completed but not yet invoiced. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate had spent £1.65 million to the end of May 2003 on dealing with appeals against the inclusion of land on provisional maps.
Wildlife Culls
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the species of which Ministers authorised culls on the basis of conservation during 2002. [117665]
Mr. Morley: The Department issued licences for killing or taking, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for the conservation of wild birds or flora and fauna during 2002, for the following species:
- Canada Geese
Greylag Geese
Barnacle Geese
Egyptian Geese
Mallard
Moorhen
Coot
Ruddy duck (as part of an ongoing control trial that began in 1999)
- Canada Geese
Greylag Geese
Egyptian Geese
Black-headed gull
Moorhen
Farmed Fish
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which species of wild fish are farmed in the UK and used in the production of fishmeal in the UK, for use in the UK; how much of each species of wild fish was taken from UK waters and used in the production of fishmeal in the UK, for use in the UK in the last 12 months; how much fishmeal is produced in the UK, for use in the UK; what species of industrially farmed fish are produced in the UK; and how much of each species of industrially farmed fish was produced in the UK, in each of the past five years. [116965]
Mr. Morley: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 27 March 2003, Official Report, column 374W. Fish species farmed in the UK are primarily for human consumption or for restocking, but some waste from farmed fish may be used in fishmeal production. Data on fish species caught in UK waters for use in fishmeal production are not available. According to data available from the Fishmeal Information Network, 50,000 tonnes of fishmeal was produced in the UK in 2002 for use in the UK.
11 Jun 2003 : Column 878W
Farming Subsidies
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the total amount of subsidy received by the British farming industry was in each of the last three years; from which budgets this money comes; what steps she is taking to monitor these costs; and if she will make a statement. [116916]
- (2) how much subsidy the British farming industry has received over the last three years for which figures are available; from which budgets this money came; what steps she is taking to monitor this spending; and if she will make a statement. [118114]
Mr. Morley: In each of the last three years, the UK farming industry received the following amounts:
| 1999–2000 | 2000–2001 | 2001–2002 |
|---|---|---|
| 3,161 | 3,042 | 4,664 |
Source:Agriculture in the UK
The figures include direct payments and market support measures under the Common Agricultural Policy, payments for rural development, compensation for animal disease, and other national grants and subsidies. Payments for market support and certain payments for rural development will not all have been received directly by the farming industry.
In 2001–2002 cash based accounting was replaced by accrual accounting. This change means that it is not possible to compare directly the 2001–2002 figures with those for previous years. However, the substantial increase in 2001–2002 can mainly be attributed to the impact of the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 2001.
The money comes either from the EC budget or directly from the UK Exchequer. The Government monitors EC costs in the Council, primarily through the annual budget process, during which the Commission's expenditure forecasts for the next year are thoroughly scrutinised. Our policy is to subject all areas of EC spending to rigorous analysis. This enables us to make better use of existing resources, and ensure that the Financial Perspective ceilings are respected. The UK and European parliaments are also involved in this process.
The Department monitors UK Exchequer costs in accordance with the procedures of resource accounting and budgeting. Expenditure on agriculture in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the devolved authorities.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |