19 Jul 2004 : Column 1W
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 19 July 2004
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
British/Spanish Fishing Fleets
Mr. Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the size of the (a) British and (b) Spanish fishing fleet (i) is and (ii) was in 1997; and what estimate she has made of the size of each fleet in 2006. [183340]
Mr. Bradshaw: The information available is given in the table. No estimate has been made of the anticipated size of the UK fleet in 2006, and an estimate for the Spanish fleet is also not available.
| Number of vessels | Gross tonnage (tonnes) 3 | Engine power (Kw) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| UK fleet 1: | |||
| As at 31 December 1996 | 8,667 | 274,532 | 1,054,927 |
| As at 31 December 2003 | 7,271 | 234,037 | 918,258 |
| Spanish fleet 2: | |||
| As at 31 December 1996 | 18,244 | 603,249 | 1,537,453 |
| As at 31 December 2003 | 14,579 | 489,002 | 1,200,712 |
(1) Data for the UK fishing fleet incorporate estimates for the fleets of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
(2) Analysis of EC Fishing Vessel Register data provided by EUROSTAT.
(3) Tonnage data for the UK fleet incorporate the effect of the remeasurement of vessels onto a Gross Tonnage basis from other methodologies.
Departmental Costs
Richard Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of refurbishments to the fabric of the Department's buildings in each year since May 1997. [184379]
Alun Michael: Expenditure on fabric refurbishment each year since the Department's creation in 2001 was:
| £ | |
|---|---|
| 2001–2002 | 850,000 |
| 2002–2003 | 3,525,000 |
| 2003–2004 | 2,464,799 |
Diagnostic Techniques and Equipment
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to reverse the amendments to EU Regulation 1774–2002 which prevent the import of by-products for use in development of diagnostic techniques and equipment. [183348]
Mr. Bradshaw:
The Government fully supports the intention of EU Regulation 1774–2002 to provide effective control on the use and importation of animal
19 Jul 2004 : Column 2W
by-products. However, we recognise that in the case of certain products of particular importance to the development of diagnostic techniques and equipment, the rules on import may not be fully justified by the risk to animal or public health presented by the products.
Following a meeting with industry representatives on 1 July, we have written to the European Commission asking them to reconsider the application of the current import requirements to these products. Officials attending the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 14 July will also raise the issue.
We are keeping industry contacts informed of progress.
English Nature
Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for judicial review were made against English Nature in the High Court in each year between 1997 and 2003 by (a) individuals, (b) non-governmental organisations and (c) corporate entities. [181514]
Mr. Bradshaw: There were no applications for judicial review made against English Nature between 1997 and 2000. Details of applications made between 2001 and 2003 are as follows:
| Individuals | Non-governmental organisations | Corporate entities | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High court | |||
| 2001 | 1 | None | (4)1 |
| 2002 | 1 | None | None |
| 2003 | None | None | (4)1 |
(4) English Nature were co-defendants with the Secretary of State
Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many judicial reviews brought against English Nature in the (a) High Court and (b) Court of Appeal between 1997 and 2003 (i) were successful and (ii) resulted in an order for costs being made against the applicant; and what costs were awarded in each case. [181522]
Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature has been successful in all proceedings brought between 1997 and 2003. Details are as follows:
One application for Judicial Review was made to the High Court, against English Nature, by an individual (2001). This was unsuccessful and no costs were awarded against that individual.
One Judicial Review heard by the High Court, brought by a company against English Nature as co-defendant with the Secretary of State, was successfully defended (2001). English Nature were awarded £117,500 (inc VAT) for their part of the costs. There was no appeal made to the Court of Appeal.
Two further cases have been heard in the High Court:
One was brought by an individual against English Nature. The action was successfully defended. However the individual concerned appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was granted in 2003, but the case was not heard until 2004. English Nature won that case. English Nature incurred costs of £250,000 (ex VAT). In reaching its decision the Court awarded costs to English Nature. It is still possible for the aggrieved to petition the House of Lords.
The other was brought by a company against the Secretary of State and English Nature in 2003. The action was successfully defended. The company concerned has now appealed to the Court of Appeal and the case will be heard later this year. Costs are, therefore, still accruing and the outcome of the case will determine the costs issue.
Fishing Families
Mr. Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to assist fishing families suffering hardship. [183353]
Mr. Bradshaw: We have taken substantial measures in recent years to address the issues facing those affected by the state of the fishing industry. £85 million of grant has been available to the UK industry in 2001–04 under the Structural Funds programme plus further amounts for specific schemes in various parts of the UK. This has included funds to promote increased competitiveness in the industry and enable vessel owners to leave the industry by decommissioning their vessels.
The Prime Minister commissioned his Strategy Unit to recommend action to create a stable future both for the industry and for the communities which depend upon it. We are now preparing to draw up an action plan with stakeholders to take forward the recommendations in the Unit's report "Net Benefits: A sustainable and profitable future for UK fishing".
Regional Development Agencies, local Business Links, Learning and Skills Councils and Job Centre Plus provide expert support to communities affected by the depletion of fish stocks.
Non-departmental Public Bodies
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many non-departmental public bodies for which her Department is responsible have been (a) established and (b) abolished since 1997. [182950]
Alun Michael: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was established in June 2001, at which time Defra was responsible for 57 NDPBs 1 . Since then the number of NDPBs established and abolished are as follows:
| NDPBs established | NDPBs abolished | |
|---|---|---|
| June 2001–March 2002(6) | 1 | 3 |
| April 2002–March 2003 | 2 | 2 |
| April 2003–March 2004 | 3 | 3 |
(5) Number includes 2 public corporations
(6) These figures are sourced from "Public Bodies". In "Public Bodies 2001" a DTI sponsored NDPB was included in Defra's return and our two public corporations were listed as an Executive NDPB and a Nationalised Industry. These were printer's errors and the figures above are correct even though they do not directly correlate with "Public Bodies".
Rural Proofing
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she proposes to strengthen rural proofing at regional level. [183913]
19 Jul 2004 : Column 4W
Alun Michael: The application of rural proofing principles at all levels of government, both in policy formulation and delivery, makes an essential contribution to our aim of building sustainable rural communities. The rural teams in all the non-London Government Offices play a leading role, as the latest Countryside Agency's Rural Proofing Report makes clear and will continue to bring rural proofing into all major policy workstreams at regional and sub-regional levels, including those of the Regional Development Agencies. Joint publications by the Regional Development Agencies show how they are approaching their work with a clear focus on Sustainable Development.
The Regional White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice' makes rural policy one of the functions of the proposed Elected Regional Assemblies, and Regional Housing Boards are required to rural proof their policies.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |