| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Nov 2006 : Column 1583W—continued
Mr. Bradshaw:
Information to answer the question is not readily available and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost. While fishing vessel licences themselves carry unique identifying numbers, the individual owners recorded on the system against each licence are not themselves uniquely identified. The information on owners is recorded in a single field which can be a mix of names of companies and individuals, of Christian names and surnames, and of initials and full names. There are also frequently several owners associated with each licence. Fishermen also often register vessels and licences against different members of their family. All of these differences can be seen and the applications themselves can be perfectly valid, with each application being checked in its own right before a fishing vessel licence is issued. However, these factors together make it very difficult to work out the full extent of the licences held by any given individual at any one time (and thus make it difficult to accurately identify new individuals entering fishing). Given the period covered in the question, these factors would make producing the information requested an exercise requiring a significant level of resources, and
hence the costs would exceed the limit set out in Cabinet Office guidance for answering parliamentary questions.
Michael Jabez Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many owners of fishing vessels sold their quota and licences in the over 10 metre sector in the period since 1 January 2000; and how many of them have acquired licences in the under 10 metre sector. [98179]
Mr. Bradshaw: Information to answer the question is not readily available and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost. Central data systems record all changes in fishing quota and vessel licence ownership that take place, with individual transfers being checked and validated as part of the process of controlling fishing activity. Details are not recorded of whether these changes are linked to actual sales or if they are happening as a result of other arrangements, for example, swaps agreed between owners as part of a bilateral agreement of some kind. As such an answer to the question cannot be provided.
In addition, ownership of fishing quota is linked to the ownership of the fishing vessel licence the quota is associated with. Such ownership data is only recorded in a single field which can be a mix of names of companies and individuals, of Christian names and surnames, and of full names and initials. There are also frequently several owners associated with each licence. Fishermen also often register vessels and licences against different members of their family. All of these differences can be seen for valid reasons, with the ownership details themselves being perfectly valid. However, these factors together make it very difficult to work out the full extent of the quota owned by any given individual at any one time. Given the period covered in the question, these factors would make producing any estimate of the information requested an exercise requiring a significant level of resources, and hence the costs would exceed the limit set out in Cabinet Office guidance for answering parliamentary questions.
Foot and Mouth
Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress he is making on plans for the vaccination of stock in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom. [100425]
Mr. Bradshaw: In the event of an outbreak, emergency vaccination will immediately be considered as a disease control measure for foot and mouth disease (FMD). Any decision to adopt an emergency vaccination strategy against FMD will be based upon epidemiological, logistical and other factors.
An Expert Group has been set up to advise the Government on FMD preparedness, including vaccination. We have established a vaccine bank which could be used to protect against various strains, the composition of which is reviewed regularly by the Expert Group. We have also put a contract in place to ensure we could carry out vaccination should it be needed. Finally, we have worked with consumers and retailers to stress the message that products from
animals vaccinated against FMD would not have any implications for food safety.
Further information is set out in the Government’s Exotic Animal Disease Generic Contingency Plan which is available on the Defra website at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/fmd/contingency/index.htm.
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
Mr. Oaten: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans he has to assist poultry farmers with the implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control charges; [100248]
(2) what estimate he has made of the annual income of the Environment Agency from fees earned from regulating the integrated pollution prevention and control regulations. [100257]
Mr. Bradshaw: Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control permit application charges and annual fees are set to cover the Environment Agency's regulatory costs in that regard (some £33 million in 20060-07) and are based on the Environment Agency's environmental protection operator and pollution risk appraisal scheme. This scheme has been designed to reflect the actual environmental risk posed by the nature, performance, location and management of each installation. In calculating the operator's charges, the scheme takes into account the installation's complexity, emissions performance, inherent potential to pollute, location, and the standards of management, control and compliance achieved by the operator.
Intensive poultry rearing installations will be charged £3,331 for a permit application and then annual charges of £2,229 for a small installation and £2,794 for a large one. On 19 May, the industry accepted an offer from the Environment Agency, conditional upon a reasonably even flow of applications, whereby a subsistence charge of £1,471 for an existing small farm and £1,844 for an existing large farm will be charged to industry from August 2007 until March 2008. This represents a saving to industry.
My noble friend the Lord Rooker met representatives of the industry recently and assured them that he would look again at what might be able to be done to reduce the costs of these regulatory requirements.
IT Projects
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which information technology projects are being undertaken by (a) his Department and (b) its agencies; what the (i) start date, (ii) original planned completion date, (iii) expected completion date, (iv) originally planned costs and (v) estimated costs are of each; and if he will make a statement. [95864]
Barry Gardiner: The following table presents the requested information for projects within core DEFRA that are classified in the IT Portfolio as Mission Critical or Significant.
A response covering lower level projects within core DEFRA and bodies beyond the core Department would incur a disproportionate cost.
| Project | Start date | Original planned completion date | Expected completion date | Original planned cost | Estimated cost |
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his Department’s five most expensive (a) web and (b) non-web information technology projects have been since 2001. [98562]
Barry Gardiner:
The following two tables show the Department’s five most expensive (a) web and (b)
non-web information technology projects since 2001. There is however a focus on projects which were either in existence when, or started since, Defra formed a strategic partnership with IBM as providers of IT services. Prior to this, Defra’s IT delivery was decentralised and we would incur disproportionate costs if we were to try to gather this information from the many business units involved.
| Table 1: web information technology projects | |||||
| Project | Start date | Original planned completion date | Expected completion date | Original planned costs (£) | Latest estimated planned costs (£) |
| (1) Financial year. | |||||
| Table 2: non-web information technology projects | |||||
| Project | Start Date | Original planned completion date | Expected completion date | Original planned costs (£) | Latest estimated planned costs (£) |
| (1) Paused. (2) Cancelled. Notes: 1. The e-nabling Defra contract commenced on 1 October 2004 and saw IBM and Defra form a strategic partnership for delivery of the Department’s IT requirements. 2. The view on web/non-web is provided to the best of our knowledge within the time available. 3. We have used the term project and programme interchangeably for the purposes of this response. | |||||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |