| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Nov 2006 : Column 1588W—continued
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of information technology projects undertaken by or for his Department since 2001 have been delivered (a) over budget, (b) after their original deadline, (c) on budget, (d) under budget, (e) on their original deadline and (f) ahead of their original deadline. [98606]
Barry Gardiner: Of the information technology projects undertaken by the Department since 2001 the following number (percentage) of projects have been delivered:
| Number | Percentage | ||
| Note: This information refers to core-Defra and projects that are recorded as being significant or mission critical only. Providing information for projects outside of this criteria would incur disproportionate costs. | |||
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many information technology projects his Department has undertaken in each year since 2001; and how many of those projects were web-related. [98607]
Barry Gardiner: The following table shows how many information technology projects the Department has undertaken in each year since 2001; and how many of those projects were web-related:
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department has spent on information technology consultants in each year since 2001; and how many of those consultants worked on web-facing projects. [98608]
Barry Gardiner: This response refers to core Defra only.
In the periods listed the Department spent the following sums on information technology consultants that were engaged in an advisory capacity:
| Amount (£) | |
It is not possible to state how many of these consultants worked on web-facing projects without incurring disproportionate costs, as this level of information is not held centrally.
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department has spent on (a) information technology projects and (b) web-facing information technology projects in each year since 2001. [98609]
Barry Gardiner: During the financial year 2006-07, the Department has spent £28.6 million on (a) information technology projects and of that, approximately £11.9 million on (b) web-facing information technology projects.
Information prior to this is not currently available and would incur disproportionate costs to do so.
Natural England
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the (a) contracts and (b) service level agreements Natural England has inherited from English Nature with environmental organisations; and what the (i) length and (ii) value is of each contract. [100392]
Barry Gardiner: It has not proved possible to respond to my hon. Friend in the time available before Prorogation.
Nirex
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to his Answer to Question 98106, for what reasons he is not undertaking a public consultation on his proposals to merge Nirex into the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency.[99371]
Ian Pearson: There has been an extensive process of consultation by CoRWM on the future management of radioactive waste, involving the public and stakeholders. Further consultation is planned next year on the site selection process.
The NDA was given the powers for disposal of radioactive waste under the Energy Act 2004 and this followed public consultation and Parliamentary debate. The proposal to augment NDA’s capabilities by incorporation of skills and technology from United Kingdom Nirex Ltd followed careful consideration in the light of views from Nirex, the NDA and others.
The Government believes that the arrangements set out in the Secretary of State’s statement to Parliament on 25 October 2006, Official Report: Column 1519 represent the most positive way forward in ensuring that CoRWM’s recommendations taken forward in a timely and effective way, to the public benefit.
Single Farm Payments
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will introduce a de minimis rule in relation to (a) claims made under the single farm payment schemes and (b) Government clawback of amounts paid; and if he will make a statement. [98642]
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 31 October 2006]: Under the EU regulation governing the Single Payment Scheme, the Rural Payments Agency already makes use, in appropriate circumstances, of a provision allowing member states not to recover amounts of €100 or less. The same regulation also allows member states to set a minimum payment level of €100 and we are considering whether to do so in England.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the merits of capping payments to recipients under single farm payments; and if he will reconsider setting a minimum level to reduce the number of payments. [100033]
Barry Gardiner: Under EU regulation governing the Single Payment Scheme, member states are allowed to set a minimum payment level of €100. We are considering whether to do so in England. There is no such provision in relation to the ‘capping’ of payments and any such proposal would be opposed as being, among other things, distorting and administratively burdensome.
Mr. Paice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many single Payment Scheme applicants in 2005 have (a) received no money and (b) not received their second instalment; how many of those applicants who have received no money (i) are awaiting probate, (ii) are
involved in changes of land area and (iii) have received no money for other reasons; and how many who have not received their second instalment (A) have disputed maps and (B) are believed to have been overpaid in their first instalment. [100069]
Barry Gardiner: The information requested is as follows:
(a) There are 116,661 claims currently eligible for a payment. 115,000 have received a full, or partial payment, leaving 1,661 that have received no payment to date.
(b) 4,756 partial payments are outstanding to be netted against the full payment.
The breakdown of how many customers are in each of the requested categories is not readily available. The RPA are currently working to obtain the information and I will write further once it becomes available.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many single payment scheme applicants in 2005 are believed to have been (a) overpaid and (b) underpaid; and how many of these applicants who have not been paid their second instalment had total claims of (i) less than £1,000, (ii) £1,000 to £4,999, (iii) £5,000 to £19,999, (iv) £20,000 to £50,000 and (v) over £50,000. [100076]
Barry Gardiner: The information requested is as follows.
(a) and (b) Current analysis of claims paid and the correction of claims is currently on-going. Until this review is complete we cannot state how many applicants have been overpaid and underpaid.
The information requested on the breakdown by value of partially paid claims is not readily available but I will respond further as soon as possible.
Mr Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what proportion of farm income was derived from the single farm payment scheme in (a) the Wantage constituency, (b) Oxfordshire and (c) the South East in each year since 1997.[98248]
Barry Gardiner: It is not possible to calculate the proportion of farm income derived from the 2005 Single Payment Scheme as a statistical analysis by region is not yet available. This information will be published in due course.
The average net farm income since 1997 for Oxfordshire and the South East is shown in the table below. We are unable to supply data for the Wantage constituency due to insufficient farms in the sample.
The fall in incomes for 1998/99 coincides with a drop in commodity prices, particularly those for cereals. Cereals are a key commodity in Oxfordshire and the South East. It should also be noted that farm income data based on small sample numbers (as they are at county level) can be subject to a greater degree of volatility and that net farm income itself is a volatile measure of farm income.
| Average net farm income (NFI) in Oxfordshire and the South East, 1997-98 to 2005-06 (£per farm) | ||
| Net Farm Income | ||
| Oxfordshire | South East | |
| Source: Farm Business Survey Net farm income is defined as the return to the principal farmer and spouce for their manual and managerial labour and on the tenant type capital invested in the business. For a more detailed explanation of Net Farm Income please refer to the following publication: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2005 | ||
Treasury Accounting Rules
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when his Department was first informed of the changes in Treasury accounting rules noted by the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Farming on Farming Today on 25 October; and if he will make a statement. [98927]
Barry Gardiner: The need for departments to control near-cash and non-cash totals was highlighted in the Spending Review 2004 guidance issued to Departments by Treasury in December 2003. Further detailed budgeting guidance was issued in December 2005.
Tuberculosis Research
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of staff redundancies at the Wildlife Unit at Stroud, Gloucestershire, on his Department’s tuberculosis research projects. [100368]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Wildlife Unit previously worked on the Randomised Badger Culling Trial, which ran from 1998 until earlier this year. There has been no field work carried out since April 2006, and data recording and checking was completed by the end of September 2006. The Wildlife Unit has no role in any other departmental tuberculosis research project, and therefore, the redundancies will not have an effect on any such projects.
Veterinary Products Committee
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the remit is of the (a) Veterinary Products Committee and (b) Medical and Scientific Board; and to whom each answers. [100326]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) is the Government’s independent Scientific Advisory Committee on Veterinary Medicines. Its terms of reference are:
“The Veterinary Products Committee is a statutory committee established to:
i) provide the Secretary of State with scientific(1) advice on any aspect of veterinary medicinal products and specified feed additives;
ii) hear representations on decisions relating to the granting, refusal, variation, suspension or revocation of a Marketing Authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product;
iii) promote the collection of information relating to suspected adverse reactions for the purpose of enabling the advice at i) above to be given.
Each year the Veterinary Products Committee will publish a report of its activities and those of its Sub-Committees.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |