|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the proportion of the 10 most landed fish species under North Sea Total Allowable Catches fished within the UK 200 mile median limit. 
Mr. Bradshaw: None of the fish stocks that involve the North Sea are exclusively within the United Kingdom's fisheries limits as they also include parts of other sea areas as well. For these stocks, no separate part of the Total Allowable Catch is related exclusively to the UK waters involved, and as such the question as asked cannot be answered.
To calculate an estimate as requested would require information on the catches by vessels of other member states. Such information is only available in terms of totals for the sea areas involved, and this does not include any breakdown of catches in terms of those caught within the UK 200 mile or median line limit. Such estimates could thus only be made available through requesting such information from the individual member states concerned.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures relating to (a) UK vessels and (b) accession state vessels European Union institutions are bringing forward to address increases in fishing capacity in EU waters since 1 May 2004. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Since the end of the fourth and final stage of the Multi-annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) in 2002, the existing member states' fleets, including that of the UK, have been subject to overall limits on tonnage (GT) and power (kW), known as reference levels. The 10 new member states were not part of the MAGP mechanism, however the Commission is working with them to urgently establish suitable reference levels which will apply retrospectively (from the date of accession). In addition, all potential new entries to the fleet in any member state (including those of the 10) must be offset (in tonnage and power terms) by equivalent withdrawals.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list communities recorded by the Environment Agency as being subject to flooding in 2000, giving in each case the number of (a) commercial and (b) residential properties flooded; and for how many and what
10 Feb 2005 : Column 1663W
percentage of properties in each community (i) flood defences have been improved, (ii) flood defence improvements have been approved but not yet implemented and (iii) flood defences improvements have been approved. 
Mr. Morley [holding answer 17 January 2005]: The Environment Agency is the principal authority responsible for managing flood risk in England. The Agency has provided as much information as possible, subject to disproportionate cost limitations, and a copy will be made available in the Library of the House.
I regret it has not been possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to categorise the properties flooded in 2000 by commercial and residential use, or the other exact details of the other questions. The information placed in the Library will however indicate the considerable progress and investment made in reducing flood risk.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many settled claims for compensation for animals destroyed in the foot and mouth epidemic payments were (a) below £100,000, (b) exactly £100,000 and (c) over £100,000. 
Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on tackling fuel poverty in each year since 1997 in (a) England and (b) Stoke-on-Trent. 
Mr. Morley: The Warm Front Scheme the major programme to tackle fuel poverty in the private sector in England, was launched in June 2000. From that time until the end of January 2005 the annual expenditure on Warm Front in England was:
|Approximate total spend|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average intervention price for (a) skimmed milk powder, (b) butterfat powder, (c) wheat and (d) beef was in pounds sterling for each year since 1992; and what the proposed price levels are for (i) 2005, (ii) 2006, (iii) 2007 and (iv) 2008. 
Alun Michael: The actual intervention prices for skimmed milk powder, wheat and beef since 1992 are shown as follows. The rates in pound sterling are dependent on the exchange rate in force on the date of the operative event pertaining to individual purchases.
|From||(ECU/EURO per 100 kg)|
|14 May 1990||172.43|
|1 July 1993||170.20|
|1 February 1995||205.52|
|1 July 2004||195.24|
|1 July 2005||184.97|
|1 July 2006||174.69|
|From||(ECU/EURO per tonne)|
|Prior to:||(EURO per tonne)|
|1 January 2000||Information not readily available|
|1 January 2000||3,475|
|1 July 2000||3,242|
|1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002||3,013|
With the exception of the 2005 and 2006 rate for skimmed milk powder, the RPA does not currently hold any information on the proposed rates for skimmed milk powder, wheat and beef for the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 years.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much (a) UK-produced and (b) EU-produced (i) skimmed milk powder, (ii) butterfat powder, (iii) wheat and (iv) beef was (A) bought into intervention and (B) sold out of intervention (1) within the EU and (2) outside the EU for each year since 1992. 
|1 October 1995 to 30 September 1995||28,430.000||680.000|
|1 October 1996 to 30 September 1997||20,716.000||1,840.000|
|1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998||33,100.000||2,354.000|
|1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999||17,256.000||19,011.825|
|1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000||0.000||75,570.750|
|1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001||0.000||3,325.000|
|1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002||25,639.000||1,245.025|
|1 October 2002 30 September 2003||30,729.000||7,882.425|
|1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004||1,816.000||8,554.925|
|1 October 1995 to 30 September 1995||27,631.444||3,557.893|
|1 October 1996 to 30 September 1997||69,005.861||10,170.119|
|1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998||11,934.175||11,031.841|
|1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999||1,266.677||57,779.765|
|1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000||0.000||36,153.676|
|1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001||0.000||13.461|
|1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 2002 30 September 2003||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 1995 to 30 September 1995||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 1996 to 30 September 1997||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998||2,066.840||0.000|
|1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999||40,700.920||25,346.080|
|1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000||0.000||17,119.160|
|1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001||0.000||0.000|
|1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002||404.200||0.000|
|1 October 2002 30 September 2003||994.320||994.320|
|1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004||0.000||707.340|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent from EU funds in (a) intervention purchases and (b) export restitution for each agricultural product for each year since 1992. 
The RPA does not hold details of expenditure on export refunds during 1992 following the introduction of a redeveloped computer system in 1993. Details of expenditure on export refunds since 1993, for each agricultural product sector, are shown at table II.
|Milk and milk products||Fresh fruit and veg.||Processed fruit and veg.||Cereals||Rice||Non annex I|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|