|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which EU countries have submitted their European Fisheries Fund (a) operational programme and (b) strategic plan to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement; 
Jonathan Shaw: Information regarding which European Union (EU) member states have submitted European Fisheries Fund (EFF) Operational Programmes and Strategic Plans is not available. However, I understand that 19 out of 26 Operational Programmes and 21 out of 26 Strategic Plans have been submitted to the Commission for approval to date.
No EU countries have yet had their EFF Operational Programmes approved by the European Commission. Of those Programmes already submitted to the Commission, I understand that the Commission is aiming to have the majority approved by the end of the year.
It is not yet possible to determine when payments of EFF moneys will begin. Payments by the Commission of the contribution from the EFF, to EU countries, take the form of pre-financing, interim payments and payment of the balance. Following the Commission decision to approve an Operational Programme, a single pre-financing amount, representing 7 per cent. of the contribution from the EFF to that Operational Programme, will be made by the Commission. Following agreement of the EU countries management and control systems, interim payments will commence.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2007, Official Report, column 777W, on fisheries: subsidies, when he expects the UK operational programme to be ready for submission to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement; 
Jonathan Shaw: We aim to consult with fishermen and other stakeholders on the Operational Programme in early 2008. Following this, we will be working to submit the UK Operational Programme to the European Commission at the earliest opportunity, which should be in any case not later than June 2008.
We cannot finalise the draft programme until agreement is reached on the split of the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) budget between the devolved Administrations. I am continuing to seek a resolution and, if necessary, will do so through the dispute resolution procedures set out in the devolution agreements.
Payments of EFF monies to European Union countries can only commence after the Commission approves the Operational Programme. Officials are working closely with the Commission during the development of the Operational Programme to ensure that the approval process can be completed as quickly as possible. We anticipate that payments to UK fishermen will commence in late 2008.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2007, Official Report, column 777W, on fisheries: subsidies, for what reasons the Government has not yet submitted the operational programme to the European Commission. 
Under the terms of the relevant European Union regulation, the draft Operational Programme must exemplify budget figures for each funding axis. Until the UK Administrations agree a
budget split, we cannot meet this requirement and, hence, cannot submit a draft Operational Programme to the European Commission.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2007, Official Report, column 777W, on fisheries: subsidies, what proposals have been put forward for the division of the European Fisheries Fund monies between the devolved administrations. 
Jonathan Shaw: Officials from the four UK Administrations have explored a number of methods for dividing the UK European Fisheries Fund (EFF) budget. These include the use of metrics (such as value of fishing industry output), numbers employed in the fisheries sector, number of fishing businesses and dependence on fisheries. It was concluded that none of these offered an allocation that was considered reasonable by all four Administrations.
For this reason, the Administrations agreed that a budget-split based on the split for the previous grant scheme, Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), offered the most reasonable compromise.
While provisional agreement has been reached for use of the FIFG split for the non-convergence budget, Administrations have failed to reach final agreement on the use of this method for the convergence budget. I am continuing to seek a resolution and, if necessary, will do so through the dispute resolution procedures set out in the devolution agreements.
I understand that the Department for Communities and Local Government provided £447,565 in respect of Boscastle through the Bellwin scheme. This reimbursed North Cornwall district council for immediate costs relating to safeguarding life and property, and clear up.
I understand some assistance was also provided to businesses by Business Link, which is operated by the Small Business Service (now the Enterprise Directorate), part of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
The Government Office for the South West, South West Regional Development Agency, Business Link and other local agencies set up the Boscastle Regeneration Steering Group to consider and address regeneration needs. Funding was secured via the Objective One European Regional Development Fund to help with post flooding regeneration and tourism marketing efforts.
Since the flooding, works to reduce flood risk have been completed on the Lower Jordan river at a cost of approximately £1.5 million. The works are under way on the River Valency at a current cost prediction of £5.6 million, and scheduled for completion in 2008.
Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of the UKs application to the European Union for financial assistance following the summer floods. 
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fly-tipping incidents were reported through the Flycapture database in each local authority in each year since the database was established. 
Joan Ruddock: I have arranged for a table to be placed in the Library of the House showing the number of fly-tipping incidents and prosecutions recorded in each local authority by local authorities on Flycapture for 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Joan Ruddock: Flycapture, the national database of fly-tipping incidents, was set up in 2004 by DEFRA, the Environment Agency and the Local Government Association, to record the number of fly-tipping incidents dealt with by the Environment Agency and local authorities. Flycapture does not record fly-tipping tonnages.
However, WasteDataFlow, the online system for local authorities to report on their municipal waste, does include a category for fly-tipping tonnages. In 2005-06 (the only year for which complete data are available), authorities reported around 140,000 tonnes of residual waste arising from the clearance of fly-tipped materials. However, this figure is likely to be an underestimate where authorities collect fly-tipped tonnages as part of their street cleaning or other regular waste collection rounds, or are able to send this waste for recycling.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2007, Official Report, column 83W to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), on fly-tipping, for what reason the estimated number of fly-tipping incidents between April 2005 and March 2006 in England differs from the figure given in the
answer of 1 November 2006, Official Report, column 458W to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), on fly-tipping. 
Joan Ruddock: The difference between the data reported in the answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 1 November 2006 and the answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) of 25 June 2007 is due to the fact that the earlier answer did not include figures for Liverpool city council and Sheffield city council.
When my Department originally published the fly-tipping data for 2005-06, a decision was taken to exclude the figures reported by Liverpool city council and Sheffield city council so that we could first ascertain that figures provided by the councils (which accounted for half of all fly-tips in England) had been correctly recorded. The figures were included as a footnote to the statistical release and were available on request.
However, following discussions with the councils concerned, it was apparent that these high incident numbers were being recorded correctly and that similar numbers would continue to be recorded. The data for Liverpool city council and Sheffield city council are now included in all Flycapture statistics and were included in the answer to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath of 25 June 2007.
Following the release of Flycapture data for 2006-07 on 9 October 2007, I wrote to all Members on 15 October that have tabled parliamentary questions on fly-tipping statistics in the last 12 months, to inform them that the statistics in the answer they were originally given in respect of previous years may have changed.
Mr. Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what access (a) visitors, (b) students and (c) temporary or part-time students had to foot and mouth virus strains at the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright in the last 12 months; what the application procedures were for activities involving such access; and if he will make a statement. 
These are matters for the Institute for Animal Health. Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright is part of the independent Institute for Animal Health (IAH), a company limited by guarantee with charitable status. By convention its operations therefore fall outside the scope of parliamentary questions, however I have drawn the attention of the Director to the hon. Members questions.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether the summary of responses to his Department's consultation on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops is awaiting ministerial approval before publication; and when he expects it to be published; 
(2) what plans there are for consideration at EU level of policies on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops in 2008; and what his Department's policy objectives for that consideration are; 
Mr. Woolas: Defra will publish the summary of responses to the public consultation on the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops when we set out the Government's plans on the next steps towards legislation in this area. This is expected shortly.
At EU level, the Council has mandated the Commission to develop crop specific guidance documents for coexistence measures. To this end the Commission is establishing a European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB). This is a move Her Majesty's Government supports.
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research his Department has assessed on separation distances between GM and conventional crops for (a) maize, (b) beet and (c) oilseed rape; and whether he plans to review existing separation distances in each case. 
Mr. Woolas: In July 2006, the Government set out their proposals on managing the coexistence of Genetically Modified (GM), conventional and organic crops in a consultation document, which is available on the DEFRA website.
This explains the research used to assess the separation distances for maize and oilseed rape. It also explains that separation distance for beet is not an issue as cross-pollination does not affect harvested beet.
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if he will provide publicity at English ports and on ferries on the dangers of Gyrodactylus salaris before summer 2008; 
(3) if he will take steps to ensure that his Department works more effectively with the Scottish Executive and sectoral canoeing and angling-based organisations to help counteract the potential threats of Gyrodactylus salaris. 
Jonathan Shaw: Gyrodactylus salaris (Gs) is a parasite that has the potential to cause widespread losses in both wild and farmed Atlantic salmon. The UK is free of Gs and we have robust legislative safeguards on trade in live fish to help ensure this remains the case.
DEFRA has carried out publicity campaigns in recent years to raise awareness among the public and advice on how to keep Gs out of the country is contained in our Keep Fish Diseases Out series of guidance leaflets. We are planning a further campaign before the summer of 2008 and although details have yet to be finalised, a key theme will be the danger of introducing Gs through travel to and from high-risk areas.
DEFRA also has comprehensive contingency plans for combating Gs and officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in other Departments and the devolved administrations on measures to update these plans and awareness campaigns.
|Period||Number of combination boilers|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|