Previous Section Index Home Page

25 Oct 2004 : Column 955W—continued

Emissions (Fallen Stock)

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has sought from scientific bodies regarding toxic emissions from the incineration of fallen stock. [192503]

Mr. Bradshaw: Defra commissioned an independent report, which was published in August 2002, to measure and review atmospheric emissions and environmental impacts of animal carcase incinerators in the UK. This is available on the Defra website at: http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project data/Default.asp under Project Code WA0806.

Environmental Health Complaints

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she collects regarding complaints received by environmental health officers relating to (a) domestic premises, (b) road works and construction, (c) industrial and commercial premises, (d) road traffic and (e) aircraft. [192307]


 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 956W
 

Alun Michael: Defra does not collate statistics on complaints received by environmental health officers on a routine basis. Annual statistics on complaints of noise nuisance in England and Wales are collected by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the latest figures being for 2002–03. 77 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales responded to the survey in this period.

In 2002–03, local authorities received 224,504 complaints of noise from domestic premises, 12,957 complaints of noise from construction sites, 11,991 complaints of noise from industrial premises, 40,602 complaints of noise from commercial premises, 1,247 complaints of noise from road traffic and 3,743 complaints of aircraft noise. Road works falls under the category of Vehicles, Machinery, and Equipment in Streets, of which there were 15,038 complaints in 2002–03.

Drinking Water Inspectorate

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions brought by the Drinking Water Inspectorate resulted in (a) convictions and (b) custodial sentences in each year since 1995; and what the average fines were where custodial sentences were awarded (i) in total and (ii) broken down by region. [192319]

Mr. Morley: The Drinking Water Inspectorate has brought 35 prosecutions to court since 1995, 34 of which resulted in successful convictions. None resulted in custodial sentences. The number of cases and associated fines are summarised in the table, in total and broken down by region.
Total number of cases brought to courtTotal fines (£)By RegionFines (£)
1995246,000Wales1,000
West Midlands45,000
1996180,000London80,000
19974
(3 successful;
1 not guilty)
19,500Wales18,000
West Midlands1,500
1998998,500Yorkshire and the Humber12,000
Wales55,500
North East6,000
South East14,000
West Midlands8,000
North West3,000
1999983,000East of England25,000
South West15,000
East Midlands10,000
South East24,000
North West9,000
20005165,500South East12,000
reduced to 126,500
on appeal
North West34,500
Yorkshire and the Humber119,000 reduced to 80,000 on appeal
2001345,000South East12,000
Wales12,000
East of England21,000
2002115,000Yorkshire and the Humber15,000
20030
200413,750East of England3,750







 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 957W
 

EU Legislation

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the EU legislation her Department has had responsibility for implementing since its inception; and what the (a) EU deadline for implementation and (b) date of final UK implementation was in each case. [192305]

Alun Michael: Defra plays a leading role in the UK's EU policy on the environment, agriculture, fisheries, animal and plant health. Between 8 June 2001 and 30 September 2004, 115 EU Directives for which Defra has responsibility for implementation were adopted.

I am placing in the Library of the House a list which itemises the Directives adopted together with:

Details of all Directives in force can be found on the Eur-Lex database available on the European Union's website at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/

Single Payment Scheme

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the cash flow implications for farmers of the change in payment date between integrated administration and control system payments and the single farm payment. [191475]

Alun Michael: The introduction of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) may have an impact on the cash flow of an individual farmer in a number of respects. The eligibility criteria and conditions attached to the SPS differ from those of existing schemes and this will affect the sums that a farmer is able to claim. The timing of payments may be different as a result of a slightly later opening of the payment window, though this may be off-set for some farmers as the entire sum will be paid as one payment as opposed to an advance in October/November followed by a balance payment the following April. In each case, the fact that the payment window was agreed in September 2003, over two years before the opening of the first Single Payment Scheme payment window, will have allowed farmers to plan their business well ahead.

The SPS is a decoupled scheme which will allow farmers to adjust their production to the needs of the market. The impact this will have on the volume and timing of individuals' expenditure on inputs and market returns may well have a more significant impact on cash flow than on the amount and timing of subsidy payments.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance regarding entitlement to the single farm payment she will give to farmers and growers who lease land (a) to and (b) from other farmers for growing a specific crop for a fixed sum of money for which some husbandry is provided. [191639]


 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 958W
 

Alun Michael: To establish an entitlement for the new single payment in 2005, the applicant will have to show that any eligible land supporting a claim forms part of his holding. A lease would constitute acceptable evidence.

To claim payment against an entitlement so established, the claimant will have to show that the land in question has been "at his disposal" for a 10-month period. This period may start at any time from 1 October this year to 30 April next year. The definition of "at the farmer's disposal"is discussed at some length in a booklet that was sent to all farmers in England in August and which is available on Defra's website.

If the claim relates to land that is supporting a so-called negative list crop, the entitlement that has been established must have attached to it a special authorisation to claim against such crops. These authorisations will be attached to payment entitlements as they are established at the request of growers according to the level of their production of such crops in specified years (within regional ceilings).

For growers who find that the introduction of the new scheme affects their ability to rent land in 2005, some guidance on possible contractual solutions is also available on Defra's website.

Farm Subsidies

Mr. Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish farm-level data on Common Agricultural Policy subsidy receipts along the lines recently announced by the Danish Government. [187734]

Alun Michael: The Government does not at present publish farm-level data on subsidy receipts. However, we are considering the legal and other implications of publication in the context of the recent CAP reforms and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which comes fully into force on 1 January 2005.

The Data Protection Act puts certain restrictions on the release of what the Act defines as 'personal data'. The publication of farm-level data showing the names and amounts of Common Agriculture Policy subsidy payments generally come within this definition. In some cases payment information relating to public or private limited companies may not fall within the definition of personal data. However, releasing information about only certain recipients would not give a representative picture of the distribution of subsidy generally.


Next Section Index Home Page