---

20 Oct 2004 : Column 695W—continued

Corals

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect ocean-bed corals, with particular reference to bottom-trawling. [191137]

Mr. Morley: The UK secured permanent protection for the Darwin Mounds cold water corals from bottom trawling through a Council Regulation agreed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in March 2004. This made permanent the emergency protection that was put in place from August 2003 under the revised Common Fisheries Policy.

At the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in February, the UK and EU were instrumental in calling for urgent action to protect vulnerable marine biodiversity from destructive practices in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. We are pressing for this year's United Nations General Assembly resolution on "Oceans and the law of the sea" to set out how this can best be achieved.

Cormorants

Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cormorants will be licensed to be killed each of the first five years under the amendments to the licensing system for the control of the cormorant population announced by the Parliamentary Secretary for Nature Conservation and Fisheries on 16 September; what procedure will be used to judge what alternatives are available to the culling of cormorants; and what evidence will be used to authorise the culling of cormorants where damage to fish stocks has not occurred but is likely to occur. [191472]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 15 October 2004]: The number of cormorants licensed to be killed will depend on the number of applications received. The objective of
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 696W
 
the new licensing policy is not to reduce the cormorant population but to reduce damage caused by cormorants while protecting the conservation status of the cormorant population.

Reports available on the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/Reports.htm have explored the limits within which the licensing system may operate without risking the conservation status of the cormorant population. They do not recommend levels of population reduction.

These reports predict that restricting the maximum number of birds killed in the long-term to below 2,000 per annum would, at most, suppress the population to a level lower than currently observed, but that this would be stable and unlikely to lead to long-term declines. The full effects of such a policy would take around five years to be fully apparent. Raising this figure in the first two years of a new policy would have little effect on long-term cormorant numbers.

The intention is to review the maximum permissible number of licences on an annual basis, based on monitoring of licence numbers and the cormorant population. This will ensure that the maximum number of licences issued does not lead to unexpected or serious reductions in cormorant numbers beyond those predicted.

The licensed removal of cormorants will only be considered where the applicant can demonstrate that they have considered alternative management measures and, where appropriate, have tested them.

They will need to provide information on deterrents and measures currently being used to protect the stock (e.g. scaring devices, proofing) and methods tried and found to be ineffective or which are impracticable.

The applicant will also need to demonstrate that significant numbers of cormorants are present at a site, that these are actively feeding and not just loafing or roosting at a site and that the site contains a resource at risk of significant damage by them. If the applicant can demonstrate these points, the new licensing system will presume that serious damage is occurring or there is a risk of serious damage.

Where a site has recent past evidence that cormorant damage is likely to occur, for example, where they have previously been issued with a licence to remove cormorants to aid scaring under the previous system, their licence applications will be considered and assessed on the basis of protecting the site against the risk of cormorant numbers returning to the level that justified the previous licence.

Forest Enterprise

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the (a) net deficit and (b) change in capital and reserves from Forest Enterprise was in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 1998–99; and what the projected sums are for (A) 2003–04 and (B) 2004–05. [190916]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 18 October 2004]: The net deficit and the change in capital reserves for Forest Enterprise across Great Britain are set out in the
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 697W
 
following table for 1998–99 and 2002–03 together with projections for 2003–04. The projected net deficit for 2004–05 is also shown. £ million

	Net deficit	Change in capital and reserves
1998–99	82	-229
2002–03	138	-233
2003–04	(4)100	-13(4)
2004–05	(5)50	(6)—

⁽⁴⁾ Figures are provisional estimates pending completion of audit procedures and will be included as part of the Annual Accounts laid before Parliament by the Commission.
⁽⁵⁾ The figure for 2004–05 is the latest forecast and may be subject to revision should circumstances change.
⁽⁶⁾ The change in capital and reserves is calculated after the end of each financial year when the revaluation of the Commission's estate has been completed. It is not therefore possible to provide a forecast for 2004–05.

Gangmasters

Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will break down the information submitted on the ACU1 forms returned to the Inland Revenue Agricultural Compliance Unit in each of the last three financial years by (a) the number of gangmasters and employment agencies engaged for the first time by those using the services of a gangmaster or an employment agency and (b) the company name of each gangmaster or employment agency engaged for the first time by those using the services of a gangmaster or employment agency; [192579]

(2) if she will break down the information submitted on the ACU2 forms returned to the Inland Revenue Agricultural Compliance Unit in each of the last three financial years by (a) the (i) number and (ii) company name of gangmasters and employment agencies engaged by those using the services of a gangmaster or employment agency and (b) the total number of workers for whom the details required by the ACU2 form were provided. [192580]

Dawn Primarolo: I have been asked to reply.

The information sought is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Inland Revenue is statutorily debarred from disclosing information relating to the tax affairs of individuals or public and private sector bodies and cannot divulge the details requested in section (b) of each question. Exemption 15 of the Code of Practice on Access on Government Information applies in this instance.

Green Ministers

Mr. Horam: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many meetings of the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers were attended by the Department's Green Minister in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [190874]

Mr. Morley: Lord Whitty is Defra's Green Minister and is a member of the Ministerial Sub-Committee of
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 698W
 
Green Ministers. However, it has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Consequently, I am unable to comment on meetings of the Sub-Committee.

Hunting

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hunt kennels have applied for registration in each of her Department's regions; and how many have been licensed. [190713]

Mr. Bradshaw: Hunt Kennels, which are collecting and treating animal by products for the purpose of supplying other premises, will require authorisation as a 'collection centre' under EU "Animal By-Products Regulation" (Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002). Such premises will also need to be authorised as a 'final user' if they feed on the premises as well as supplying.

Those premises receiving feed obtained from a collection centre will require approval as a 'final user'.

Information specifically relating to 'hunt kennels' is unavailable. Nationally as of 15 October 2004, 597 collection centres and final users had sought approval under the Regulation, 18 have been rejected, 451 have been approved and 128 are awaiting assessment by the State Veterinary Service as to whether or not an approval can be issued.

Note:

Not all of the animal by-product premises referred to are hunt kennels.

The breakdown by the Department's Region's is as follows:
Annex 1

	Collection centres	Final user
North Region
Applied	38	97
Approved	38	94
West Region
Applied	33	40
Approved	36	54
East Region
Applied	42	108
Approved	33	133

Note:
The information was obtained from the Animal By-Product Regulations Information System (ABPRIS), which is currently undergoing development. This information will be subject to change as/when the database has undergone a full and complete data cleansing exercise.



 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 699W
 

---