Further memorandum submitted by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT,
FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PSA TARGETS
1. How does the 1998 PSA relate to the 2000
PSA and, in turn, how does that relate to the 2002 PSA? This question
is intended to clarify how the Department's objectives and targets
have changed over this period, bearing in mind the restructuring
of the machinery of government that occurred.
The chart overleaf tracks the movement of PSA
targets through successive Spending Reviews (SRs). The targets
from the 1998 and 2000 Spending Reviews related to the then MAFF
and relevant parts of the DETR. On its creation in June 2001,
the Department inherited these targets. It consulted on a new
aim and objectives, which were published in autumn 2001. These
formed a basis for discussion within Government of the PSA targets
for SR2002.
Some targets might become obsolete, but in general
they cannot simply be dropped. Defra has an obligation to continue
to report on all extant targets until such time as they are met,
or where the target is time specific and we are now outside that
particular timeframe.
The CSR PSA targets are listed in the left-hand
column of the chart overleaf and the SR2000 PSA targets in the
centre column. The SR2002 PSAs are listed in the right hand column
and the bold text and arrows next to each target indicate the
target transition and achievement (eg which targets have been
achieved/not achieved; ongoing/or contributory target; carried
forward; reformulated and carried forward; and reformulated as
SDAs in the case of some CSR targets).
Relationship between Comprehensive Spending Review
1998, Spending Review 2000 and Spending Review 2002 PSAs
SITES OF
SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC
INTEREST
2. With regard to PSA 2002 Target 6, is English
Nature responsible for assessing all of the designated sites?
Please could you clarify Fig 7 (p 71)? It appears that the Crown
Estate is responsible for approximately 92,000 hectares, of which
only 20% has been assessed. If this is the case, how is English
Nature going to meet the target of assessing all designated sites
by 31 March 2004? Furthermore, a high proportion of the Crown
Estate SSSI area that has been assessed is failing the PSA target.
Do you expect this pattern to be repeated in the remaining land?
If so, what effect will that have on meeting Target 6?
English Nature is responsible for assessing
the condition of all SSSIs in England. The target date for completion
of the assessments was March 2003 and not March 2004.
With significant effort by English Nature Area
Teams, the assessment programme was completed to time by end March
2003. English Nature has now assessed all SSSI land (with the
minute exception of a small area which is inaccessible for health
and safety or access refusal reasons). This provides reassurance
on the second aspect of the Committee's question on Crown Estate
land.
Data gathered is currently being validated but
we expect the overall position as at 31 March 2003 to be that
56.9% is on target. This figure and the trend reported over previous
years reflects the fact that although more land was found to be
on target each year, reporting it as a percentage proportion of
the total land surveyed meant a slight decrease because of the
proportion found to be not on target. For the first time, this
year's figure reflects the condition of the entire SSSI area in
England.
It may be helpful to give some further background
on the position as regards the assessment of Crown Estate land.
This graph in Figure 7 is concerned with key
bodies that are subject to the statutory duty[1]in
respect of protecting and enhancing SSSIs, also known as section
28G bodies. In order to report with detailed precision on the
condition of Section 28G authority land, English Nature needs
both site condition assessment data and data on the extent of
the authorities' ownership and influence. Following completion
of the condition assessment programme, English Nature has the
former, but not the latter for the Crown Estate.
Until this detailed data is obtained, the amount
of SSSI land owned and managed by the Crown Estate will continue
to be an estimate. Figure 7 makes clear where data is based on
estimates rather than GIS data on landholdings. The graph illustrated
English Nature's estimations of SSSI ownership as at September
2002. EN is working with landowners to ensure that more accurate
data is collected; and in the light of that it is able to refine
its information. For example, when the digital boundary information
from the Forestry Commission was analysed, it was clear that some
land that was initially thought to be owned and managed by the
Crown Estate was in fact leased to the Commission. In order to
prevent "double accounting" for this land, the estimate
of SSSI land attributable to the Crown Estate has now been revised
to approximately 44,000 hectares instead of 92,000 hectares. It
is also true to say that large upland and coastal areas were amongst
the last parts of the SSSI network to be assessed and the Crown
Estate owns over half the area between high water mark and low
water mark in the UK. The precise figure for SSSI land owned by
the Crown Estate will be available when English Nature obtains
detailed information on the Crown Estate's land ownership. Work
to facilitate this is under way.
However we emphasise that, having completed
the condition assessments of the sites, work is proceeding with
the land managers and tenants on such sites. The precise identification
of land tenure of particular bodies is obviously an important
factor in delivering of the target, and English Nature is pursuing
this. But at this stage in the process, it is not hindering work
between English Nature and land managers to improve the condition
of sites.
PERFORMANCE AGAINST
PSA TARGETS
3. What steps is Defra taking to bring performance
back "on course" for those CSR PSA and SR2000 PSA targets
that have not been met or where there is some slippage? What milestones
are in place to measure progress for these targets?
Summary response
Our response covers the following targets:
— Reduce the incidence of BSE (CSR
1998 Target 4 and SR 2000 Target 11);
— UK beef exports (CSR 1998 Target
5);
— Outbreaks of serious animal, fish
and plant diseases and pests (CSR 1998 Target 6);
— Cut the overall cost of the CAP to
European Union (EU) consumers and taxpayers (CSR 1998 Target 8);
— Secondary treatment for all sewage
discharges (CSR 1998 Target 13);
— Air quality (SR 2000 Target 1);
— Achieve the agriculture strategy
(SR 2000 Target 9);
— Achieve a reduction of 10% in the
unit cost of administering CAP payments (SR 2000 Target 10).
CSR 98 TARGETS WHICH
NOT MET/HAVE
SLIPPED
Reduce the incidence of BSE
Target 4. Reduce the incidence of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) by 85% in 2001 compared with 1997, when there
were 4,311 cases (as measured by the number of confirmed cases
of BSE).
Status of target: Some slippage. The final total
for 2001 was 781 confirmed cases, an 82% reduction on 1997. The
1998 PSA target was carried forward into the Spending Review 2000
and was reformulated as target 11 in PSA 2000.
This target exists to monitor the progress of
the BSE epidemic against the predictive model (see below). As
the average incubation period for the disease is five years (it
can be far longer), no action taken by Defra in 2001 could have
influenced the number of cases confirmed in that year.
An 85% reduction from 4,311 gave a target of
646 cases for 2001. The final total was 781. The target was based
on the predictions made by the VLA model, the underlying assumption
of which is that the cattle population remains unchanged in size
and in age structure.
However the cattle population structure was
distorted during the FMD epidemic of 2001. This was a result of
the suspension of OTMS slaughter between February and September
2001. Disposal of cull cows was therefore severely restricted.
It is estimated that approximately 400,000 of
the usual—750,000 cull cows remained in the population in
2001. This resulted in a temporary change in the size and age
distribution of the cattle population—in particular an increase
in the proportion of older animals. The distortion resulted in
the predicted figures under estimating the actual number of cases.
In short, more older animals had time to develop signs of the
disease because they remained on farm longer than anticipated
by the model. The perturbation was also evident in 2002, when
the final figure was 445 cases.
It is too early to be sure, but there is some
evidence to suggest that the distortion in the age structure is
resolving itself. Confirmed cases during the first quarter of
2003 show a marked reduction and indicate that the total numbers
for 2003 may be in the region of 200 to 225.
The revised target from 1 April 2002 is:
"Protect public health and ensure high
standards of animal welfare by reducing the annual incidence of
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) to less than 30 cases by
2006".
It is too early for any milestones for the 2006
target yet, but the final figure for confirmed cases in 2003 will
give the best indication yet as to whether we are back on track.
UK Beef exports
Target 5. Secure the progressive lifting of
the ban on UK beef exports with a goal of achieving total exports
in 2001 equivalent to more than 10% of the pre-ban level (227,000
tonnes on average over the period 1991-95).
Status of target: Not met. Beef exports were
suspended in 2001 because of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). They
resumed in September 2002 after the rules of the date-based export
scheme (DBES) were relaxed. However, only three plants have been
approved under the new scheme and until this and market conditions
change, only small quantities of beef will be exported.
Beef exports were suspended in 2001 because
of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). They resumed in September 2002
after the UK secured a relaxation to the rules of the Date-Based
Export Scheme (DBES) to allow plants to handle DBES ineligible
cattle and beef as long as this is done separately in time or
space.
However, only three plants have been approved
under the revised scheme. Unless and until market conditions change,
or the DBES is further amended or abolished, only small quantities
of beef will be exported.
We are exploring with the EU Commission a number
of amendments to the DBES to make it easier for companies to export
but these need to be agreed at the EU level following consideration
by the EU's scientific and veterinary authorities. Our long-term
aim is for the UK to reach moderate risk BSE status so that we
can export on the same basis as other Member States.
No milestones can be given to this target, as
we are entirely dependent upon the decisions of the Commission,
for which we have no time frame.
Outbreaks of serious animal, fish and plant diseases
and pests
Target 6. Prevent outbreaks of serious animal,
fish and plant diseases and pests.
This target was inherited from the former Ministry
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and was set to run until March
2002. The target has not been carried through into SR2000 or SR2002.
We continue to show the target so as to provide a complete picture
of our performance, however as the target ran from 1999 to 2002,
and the outbreaks occurred within that period, we are, by its
nature unable to meet the target. However, we do take the issue
of animal, fish and plant disease seriously and continue in our
efforts to ensure that their impact is minimised.
Animal disease
The Government has learnt a good deal from the
experiences of classical swine fever and foot and mouth, as shown
in the Sustainable Food and Farming Strategy and the Response
to the Reports of the Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiries. It is
impossible to reduce the risk of exotic disease outbreaks to zero.
The Government's objective is to minimise the risks, and to ensure
that, if they do occur, outbreaks are controlled rapidly and effectively,
at minimum cost and disruption.
Government is undertaking a range of measures
to:
(i) reduce the risk that exotic disease virus
enters the country (whether in illegal imports of meat or animal
products or live animals);
(ii) reduce the prospect that, if it comes
in, it reaches farmed livestock and develops into disease;
(iii) improve disease detection and reduce
spread once it is here; and
(iv) effectively control disease and limit
the scale of outbreak once it is reported.
Following a rolling illegal imports Action Plan,
the number of illegal imports seized in 2002-03 rose to three
times the number made in the previous year, reflecting increased
enforcement activity and better evidence-based targeting. Additional
resources for the coming years, together with the improved enforcement
and intelligence capability provided by the transfer of anti-smuggling
activity to HM Customs and Excise, should ensure that this work
is consolidated and built upon.
In terms of restricting pathways to livestock,
the Government has banned the feeding of swill; undertaken a risk
assessment to identify threats and highlight critical control
points; and will be including relevant messages in biosecurity
advice to farmers and others in the countryside. The introduction
of a six-day movement standstill on sheep and cattle, a new veterinary
surveillance strategy, and a forthcoming biosecurity and education
campaign should help to limit disease spread and improve disease
detection.
In the event of an outbreak being confirmed,
the structures and systems laid out in the revised Foot and Mouth
Disease Contingency Plan provide for a rapid response to the emergency.
The Contingency Plan ensures that adequate resources are marshalled
and that an effective command and control structure is quickly
put in place.
These measures form part of a developing partnership
approach to the animal health and welfare agenda, which will be
set out in an outline GB Animal Health and Welfare Strategy likely
to be published over the summer.
Fish disease
In the case of fish disease, Defra with its
delivery agent, CEFAS, took rapid action through current legislative
and other measures to deal with an outbreak of disease. An explanation
of the controls on notifiable fish diseases in Great Britain and
advice on steps to prevent spread of disease are contained in
the attached Defra publication "Combating Fish Disease".
Great Britain has a high fish health status.
We are free from some of the most serious fish diseases that occur
in other countries, which have the potential to wreak havoc with
our farmed and wild fish species. We are able to maintain this
status by:
— guarding against introducing disease,
ensuring as far as possible, that only healthy fish come into
the country. We do this through comprehensive licensing and health
certification requirements for imports of live fish from non-EU
countries and movement controls and health certification for live
fish coming from other Member States;
— regular monitoring of fish farms
and other premises for the presence of disease in accordance with
minimum target inspection rates;
— taking rapid action in the event
of outbreaks of serious diseases to contain and prevent their
spread; and
— asking fish farmers, fishery managers
and all concerned with buying, selling, keeping and moving live
fish, to ensure that every precaution is taken to prevent the
introduction or spread of disease.
The milestones used to measure progress are:
— absence of confirmed outbreaks of
serious notifiable fish diseases; and
— success in intercepting illegal movement
of live fish into the country which pose a major threat to disease
introduction.
Plant disease
In general the number of new outbreaks of "quarantine"
plant pests and diseases (ie those against which official statutory
action is justified) has been steady or declining in recent years,
as the following table shows:
NUMBERS OF NEW OUTBREAKS OF SOME KEY PLANT
PESTS AND DISEASES
| '92 | '93 |
'94 | '95 | '96 |
'97 | '98 | '99 |
'00 | '01 | '02 |
| beet rhizomania | 13 | 7
| 15 | 11 | 25 |
10 | 10 | 33 | 13
| 68 | - |
| Bemisia tabaci1 | 43 |
36 | 58 | 5 | 3
| 16 | 26 | 20 |
32 | 21 | 24 |
| Liriomyza huidobrensis2 | 43 |
30 | 54 | 75 | 77
| 53 | 53 | 42 |
36 | 15 | 16 |
| Colorado beetle | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 |
| Potato brown rot | 1 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 0 | 2 | 1
| 0 | 0 |
| Thrips palmi3 | 0 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 1 | 0 |
| Phytophthora ramorum4 | -
| - | - | - |
- | - | - | -
| - | - | 131 |
1 tobacco whitefly, pest on glasshouse crops under UK conditions
2 a leafminer, pest of glasshouse crops under UK conditions
3 a thrips, pest of glasshouse crops under UK conditions
4 the pathogen causing sudden death of oak trees in California,
and disease on rhodendrons and viburnums in Europe.
There are two main exceptions to this trend.
Last year Defra discovered outbreaks of Phytopthora ramorum,
a pathogen which is causing the sudden death of oak trees in California,
and a leaf and shoot dieback of rhododendrons and viburnums in
Europe. Precautionary action is being taken while the risk to
native trees is fully assessed.
Conversely statutory action against rhizomania was discontinued
in 2002. Measures were taken from 1987 to 2001 to slow the spread
of this disease, which reduces yield of susceptible sugar beet
varieties. In 2001 findings in Norfolk and Suffolk indicated that
those counties, at least, no longer qualified for EC protected
zone status. Resistant varieties of sugar beet were becoming more
generally available, and consultation showed no general support
for retaining protected zone status just for the rest of England.
Eradication work is continuing against the potato brown rot
bacterium in a number of rivers in eastern England, and restrictions
on irrigation from three watercourses have recently been lifted.
Consultations will be carried out this year on appropriate risk
management measures arising from several new or revised pest risk
assessments, and on draft contingency plans against outbreaks
of a number of major plant pests and diseases. The measures being
taken by Defra and HM Customs to improve awareness and enforcement
of rules on the import of animal and plant products have an important
role in reducing the risk of introducing new pests and diseases
to the UK and to Europe.
Cut the overall cost of the CAP to European Union (EU) consumers
and taxpayers
Target 8. Cut the overall cost of the CAP to European Union
(EU) consumers and taxpayers from its current level of 88 billion
ecus (£62 billion) a year.
This target has been reformulated under SR2000 to turn it
into a Public Service Agreement target, with a specific timescale.
It now reads:
Secure agreement, by March 2004, to reforms that reduce the
cost of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to consumers and
taxpayers.
We are on course to meet our PSA target though the current
negotiations in Luxembourg are crucial.
When the Commission published in January its legislative
proposals for reform of the CAP, there was strong opposition from
some member states to any agreement, before 2006, which went beyond
the terms of the Agenda 2000 reforms. Ministers and officials
from the UK worked hard to help stiffen the resolve of pro-reform
member states and the Commission and to push for radical reform
ahead of the Cancun WTO meeting in September this year. We also
worked with farming, consumer, development and environmental organisations
in the UK to help promote the benefits of reform to their counterparts
and the wider public in the EU.
At the time of writing, reform negotiations are underway
at the Luxembourg Agriculture Council and there is optimism that
a reform package will be agreed.
The UK's aim from those negotiations is to secure:
— a shift in support from production-linked subsides
to environmental and rural development measures;
— a significant increase in the UK's share of rural
development funding;
— degressivity (reduction) of direct payments, on
an equitable basis;
— support for price cuts, especially for dairy and
cereals, and the relaxation of associated production controls;
and
— decoupling of direct livestock payments from production.
If the Commission's original proposals were to be agreed,
which would largely meet these objectives, we estimate it would
lead to savings for the EU taxpayer of around
1 billion (though without any reform, expenditure would hit the
EU's financial ceiling so some cut would be necessary anyway).
Such reform would also put the EU on the front foot in the wider
trade liberalisation negotiations at the WTO ministerial meeting
in Cancun.
However, as with any negotiation where parties have widely
differing views, it is by no means certain that all of our objectives
will be achieved. That does not mean we should not have adopted
reform as a key goal for the Department. By doing so we have identified
it as an area on which to target effort and resources and to give
it our best shot.
The degree of our success will be met in terms of the extent
to which:
— the overall burden of CAP on the EU budget is
reduced over the coming years;
— EU consumers see cheaper food prices;
— farmers benefit from a simplification of the subsidy
system and are freed up to meet market demands;
— the adverse impact of farming on the environment
is reduced;
— funding for wider rural development goals increases;
and
— other countries, in particular developing countries,
gain greater access to EU markets.
These are all important areas with respect to the Department's
sustainable food and farming agenda and our wider sustainable
development goals and we will be monitoring them closely in those
contexts.
Secondary treatment for all sewage discharges
Target 13. Ensure that secondary treatment is provided
for all sewage discharges from towns with a population of 15,000
or more by 31 March 2002.
The target is now to provide secondary treatment for sewage
discharges from such towns without this level of treatment as
soon as practicable.
The dates by which the relevant sewerage companies will be
expected to provide secondary treatment for the four remaining
discharges have been set by the Environment Agency, the discharge
regulator for England and Wales.
The Environment Agency consider them to be realistic and
achievable given completion of these schemes depend on the construction
of collection and treatment facilities, and the resolution of
planning and/or discharge consent issues.
The Environment Agency will monitor progress, and take action
where appropriate to achieve these targets.
SR 2000 TARGETS WHICH
NOT MET/HAVE
SLIPPED
Air Quality
Target 1. Improve air quality by meeting our National Air
Quality Strategy targets for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
particles, sulphur dioxide, benzene and 1,3-butadiene.
The Government is committed to delivering cleaner air as
quickly as possible. Emissions of nearly all air pollutants have
fallen over the last decade as a result of a number of policies
promoted by the Government (eg cleaner fuels, emission abatement
technologies for vehicles and industry, etc).
But the battle is not yet won. Although emissions of most
pollutants are falling, the air concentrations of some pollutants
are not falling as fast as we would like. There are some parts
of the country, which are at risk of exceeding the particles,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide objectives in the Air Quality PSA targets.
This is the reason of the "some slippage" in the Departmental
Report.
We are considering what additional measures are needed to
close the gap towards meeting the PSA targets through a number
of for a including:
— The Review of the Air Quality Strategy.
— The Review of the 10 Year Transport Plan.
— The Review of the Climate Change Programme.
— The Delivery of Defra and DfT joint Air Quality
PSA target.
— Negotiation of Directives and Protocol at the
European and international level.
Achieve the agriculture strategy
Target 9. Achieve the agriculture strategy, the modernisation
of agriculture, and an increase in the competitiveness and consumer
focus of the food chain as measured by the real food price index
and sustainable competitiveness indicators to be developed by
March 2001.
In fact 59 have been met and progress is well under way on
a further two. On the specific measures themselves, illustrated
by the following table:
| Commitment |
Status
|
Reason for delay | Milestones to ensure delivery
|
| A new advisory booklet on farm diversification, including basic guidance on planning issues and requirements
| Underway. A contract is about to be let to write and produce the booklet, which will provide links to external sources of advice
| FMD and the subsequent policy commission—important that this booklet is part of the new, wider partnership approach
| Will be produced under a formal contract with an external supplier to guarantee delivery to cost and quality.
|
| Aim to secure at EU level a derogation to allow a higher limit for nitrates on grassland
| Not met | No other member state supports UK view. Impossible to achieve and to pursue does not represent good value for money.
| Will not be pursued. |
| Consult on the way in which the Waste Framework Directive applies to agricultural waste in England and Wales
| Under way | Timetable changed due to subsequent decision, by PM and SoS to establish the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders Forum, to ensure on going engagement and improvement communication with stakeholders
| Plans and process for consultation agreed with the Stakeholders forum
|
| Launch an electronic portal for farming |
Not met | Creation of DEFRA with a broader remit requires a wider approach to electronic services
| New eCommunications improving technologies used to deliver all electronic services
|
Achieve a reduction of 10% in the unit cost of administering
CAP payments
Target 10. Achieve a reduction of 10% in the unit cost
of administering CAP payments by March 2004, and 95% electronic
service delivery capability for such payments by March 2004.
The PSA target was agreed under SR 2000 and revised under
SR 2002 putting back the delivery dates because of staff being
diverted to help deal with the Foot and Mouth disease in 2001-02.
The Change Programme that will deliver against the PSA target
is on schedule for completion by December 2004. RPA has undertaken
an exercise to define the baseline costs for 2000-01 against which
future efficiency savings will be measured.
The Change Programme is under close monitoring and management
as detailed in the Government's response to the Select Committee's
report on the Rural Payments Agency published on 8 April 2003.
RPA has agreed to provide the Committee with its Annual Report
and regular (quarterly) updates on progress with the Change Programme.
FLOOD AND
COASTAL DEFENCE
4. No PSA targets have been set for Flood and Coastal
Defence, yet the Government will be increasing the level of capital
support by £150 million by 2005-06. What assessments have
been made or will be made of how cost-effective this capital support
is?
One of the features of SR2002 was a general push to reduce
Departments' PSAs to 10 targets or fewer. This combined with the
need to retain an element of continuity from the 2000 PSA left
no scope for the inclusion of a PSA target for Flood and Coastal
Defence. However, we ensured that three SDA targets (SDA 26, 27
and 28, see full text below) were drawn up to cover this important
area of Defra's responsibilities. These three SDA targets are
subject to the same delivery planning process as Defra's other
PSA targets.
26. To aim, by the encouragement of sustainable defence
measures (including timely and effective flood warning systems),
to have no loss of life through flooding
27. By investing £397 million over the Spending Review
period (2003-06), Defra will reduce the risk of flooding to life,
to major infrastructure, environment assets and to some 80,000
houses.
28. Defra will implement the conclusions of the Flood
and Coastal Defence Funding Review including the development of
proposals for new funding streams and initiatives to reduce the
percentage of overheads involved in the provision of flood defences,
to an agreed Implementation Plan to be developed by March 2003.
References to "flooding" should be read as also
including "risks from coastal erosion".
Both Defra and the flood and coastal defence operating authorities
have a responsibility for ensuring that value for money is obtained
when investing in flood defence works. Defra has provided guidance
to the operating authorities on how the requirements set out in
the Treasury's Green Book (Appraisal and Evaluation in Central
Government) can be achieved in relation to flood and coastal defences.
At a minimum the benefits must exceed the costs, and the
priority score arrangements for Defra funding (with three elements
of benefit: cost ratio, "people" and environmental aspects)
generally lead to even more cost effective schemes than this threshold.
In recent years the aggregate benefit: cost ratio of Defra funded
schemes has been 5:1 or higher, representing very good value for
this funding stream. Defra and the operating authorities will
continue to appraise schemes in line with the guidance to ensure
that the support is cost effective.
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
5. What is the breakdown of the 85% customer satisfaction
rating by Defra division and agency? Which areas do not have feedback
systems?
The aggregated customer satisfaction rating quoted in the
Report was arrived at by benchmarking the results of customer
surveys carried out over the past 12 months by the following Defra
agencies and other units:
— Veterinary Medicines Directorate.
— Central Science Laboratory.
— Pesticide Safety Directorate.
— Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture.
— Horticulture Marketing Inspectorate.
— Egg Marketing Inspectorate.
— Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate.
— Wildlife Licensing and Registration.
— Veterinary Laboratories Agency.
Overall satisfaction levels ranged from 98% to 72%.
The main delivery units not covered by the exercise which
reported in December 2002 were the Rural Development Service (RDS),
the State Veterinary Service (SVS), the British Cattle Movement
Service (BCMS), the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and the Plant Variety
Rights Office. All these units are now using customer feedback
surveys to help drive delivery improvements, and these surveys
will contribute to the December 2003 report.
DEPARTMENTAL OPERATIONS
FIGURES
6. Table 1 or Chapter 5 of the Annual Report shows a resource
budget for Departmental Operations of £250 million for 2003-04.
In the Supply Estimate the Departmental Operations are given as
£217 million. What is the reason for the difference?
The differences in the figures are due to the following factors:
(a) A reconciliation between the Estimate, Accounts and
Budget is included as a note to the Estimate. The reconciliation
includes an amount of unallocated resource provision attributable
to Departmental Operations, accounting for £11 million of
the difference; and
(b) the Estimate reports information with reference to
departmental objectives, whilst the Departmental report data is
broken down by functional area/activity. Two discrete mappings
of data are therefore required to generate the tables. Judgements
are required when mapping functional spend to objectives. These
are continually reviewed and due to an inconsistency, data that
has been mapped to the Departmental Operations line in the Departmental
Report has been mapped to line D in the Estimate. This relates
to departmental objective 4: "Promoting sustainable, diverse,
modern and adaptable farming". As is customary we will use
the Supplementary Estimates process to make any required adjustments
between sub-heads to reflect changes in spending plans, and will
factor in the above.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
SR 2002 TOTALS
7. The totals contained in chapter five of the Annual
Report and in SR2002 do not appear to match. Please can you explain
this difference?
The budget totals in the core tables differ from those issued
in the 2002 Spending Review for the following reasons:
(a) Departmental budgets are not static. Over time, in
the normal course of business, the Department takes up new budgeted
amounts agreed with Treasury for items such as Capital Modernisation
Fund and Invest to Save budgets, which are administered outside
the Spending Review;
(b) Budgets are transferred between Departments as responsibility
for functions and activities change. The report data therefore
reflect budget transfers in from, and transfers out to, other
government Departments;
(c) Departments are required to include in resource Budgets
a cost of capital charge based on the value of their net assets.
Treasury reduced the percentage rate to be charged from 6% to
3.5% in autumn 2002. Budgets across all years in the report have
been restated on this basis.
(d) The Resource Budgets in the Departmental Report comprise
both AME and DEL. AME is forecast to decline over the Plan period.
16 June 2003
1
Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended
by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). Back
| 
