|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he next plans to discuss fisheries quota management with Ministers in the devolved administrations; and if he will make a statement. 
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he has taken to help provide more quota to the 10 metre and under fleet in 2008; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: The Marine and Fisheries Agency is exploring all options to acquire additional quota for the inshore fleet through domestic and international swaps, and via quota contributed to 10 metre and under quota allocations by producer organisations under economic link arrangements.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 10 January 2008, Official Report, column 744W, on fisheries: quotas, what proposals his Department supported to (a) reform quota management and (b) improve quota availability for the 10 metre and under fleet prior to June 2007; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: In my previous answer to which the hon. Member refers, I explained why publication of the draft Quota Management Change Programme proposals would be misleading and unhelpful. For the same reasons, I do not propose to set out those proposals here.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the planned consultation for the Quota Management Change Programme did not take place between January and March 2007; and if he will make a statement. 
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if he will make it his policy to use the dispute resolution procedure in the devolution agreements to introduce UK-wide reform of quota management; and if he will make a statement; 
Jonathan Shaw: The Government will continue to constructively engage with the devolved Administrations with regard to fisheries management. The memorandum of understanding between the Government and the devolved Administrations provides mechanisms for resolving disputes where necessary.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which public authorities, other than local authorities and their partner organisations, have access to the MAGIC database. 
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers the British Horseracing Authority has to tackle excessive use of whips by jockeys in horseracing; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence either to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for the welfare needs of the animal. Any person or organisation may initiate criminal proceedings under the Act where there is reason to believe that unnecessary suffering has been caused.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will use powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to criminalise the excessive whipping of racehorses by jockeys; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to either cause any unnecessary suffering or to fail to protect an animal from pain, injury or suffering. This law protects all horses from excessive use of the whip.
Jonathan Shaw: DEFRA has no plans to commission research into the effect of whipping racehorses. Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already makes it an offence for anyone to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal under the control of man. A court would have to decide, based on the individual circumstances of the case, whether an offence had been committed under section 4 of the Act.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the costs to (a) his Department and (b) the farming industry of changes made to the regulations on farm burials and the disposal of carcasses in each year since the regulations came into force; and what assessment he has made of the effects of the prohibition of on-farm burials on water quality over the same period. 
Jonathan Shaw: Following the introduction of the EU Animal By-products Regulation in 2003, which introduced a ban on the on-farm burial of livestock, the UK National Fallen Stock Scheme (NFSS) began operating in November 2004. Initially, DEFRA and the devolved Administrations agreed jointly to provide funding of £20 million to support the scheme on a reducing basis over three (later extended to four) years.
|(1) To end December.|
The NFSS is run by the National Fallen Stock Company (NFSCo). Although NFSCos running costs are mainly financed by the farmers who are members of the scheme, DEFRA and the devolved Administrations have also made contributions to its set-up costs, scheme administration and IT. These contributions are set out in the following table.
In addition, DEFRA has carried out a number of publicity campaigns to better articulate the need for the burial ban. These cost £10,000 in 2006-07 and £40,860 in 2007-08. This activity was the result of a recommendation set out by Bob Bansback in his independent review of the NFSS.
It is not possible to estimate the amount spent by the farming industry. Not all farmers are members of the scheme and many will have made their own arrangements to dispose of carcases in compliance with the rules. In addition, many farmers would have disposed of carcases as required by the EU regulation even had it not been agreed, given the strict controls on carcase disposal under previous domestic legislation.
With regard to the impact on water quality, no such assessment has been made. The Environment Agency is often involved with carcases found in or near to watercourses. The Agency has previously stated that it has no direct evidence to show that on-farm burial in the past has caused reportable pollution problems. However, EU scientific opinion which underpinned the Animal By-products Regulation expressed concern:
about the location of burial sites and access of livestock to them;
that the potential for transmission of TSEs from specified risk material buried near the surface was poorly characterised;
about the extent to which infectivity would be reduced by burial;
about the penetration of prions into leachates and groundwater; and
the dangers arising from re-engineering in areas where previous burial of TSE contaminated material had occurred.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings (a) he and (b) officials in his Department have had with representatives of the company Morgan Allan Moore in the last 12 months. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 17 January 2008]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and advice. It is not the usual practice of Government to disclose details of such meetings.
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking under the public sector food Initiative to encourage public sector bodies to phase out the purchase of conventional battery eggs when procuring food and meals; and if he will make a statement. 
The public sector food procurement initiative contains a specific objective to promote animal welfare, but does not provide specific guidance on purchasing eggs. We are however committed to the 2012 deadline to phase out conventional battery cages across the EU and welcome the recommendation
in the Commission's recently published report on the welfare of laying hens in various production systems to maintain that deadline.
We will be alerting public bodies to the Commission's recommendation that the 2012 deadline should stay, of our commitment to this deadline and that alternative production systems offer clear welfare advantages over conventional (i.e. barren) battery cages. This should help to raise awareness and encourage public bodies to look at other methods of production.
Joan Ruddock: Central Government do not hold information on councils which operate reward-only incentive schemes to encourage recycling. The type of waste collection scheme operated by a local authority is rightly a local decision.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grants his Department has provided for the re-development of Coventry in the last 12 months; and what (a) grants and (b) loans for that purpose are planned for the future. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 23 January 2008]: There have been no specific DEFRA grants or loans provided for the re-development of Coventry in the last 12 months. Coventry city council is working in partnership with a number of private sector developers and Advantage West Midlands (the regional development agency (RDA) for the west midlands) to continue the regeneration of the city. Details of
DEFRA is one of six Departments which contributes to the financing of all England's regional development agencies through the RDA single programme. The funding is allocated according to a specific formula.
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for which regulators and inspectorates his Department has had responsibility in each year since 1997; what the budget was of each such body in each year; and what the cost to the public purse was of any restructuring of each such body in each year. 
Jonathan Shaw: The DEFRA regulators and inspectorates listed are those included in Philip Hamptons review Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement. Published in March 2005, having been commissioned by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the aim of the review was to identify ways in which the administrative burden of regulation on businesses can be reduced, while maintaining or improving regulatory outcomes.
Budget information for each body has been provided where this is readily available from either published annual reports and accounts or from the Cabinet Office annual publication Public Bodies. Information has been provided back to 2001-02, the year in which DEFRA was created. Information relating to the cost of restructuring for these bodies is not held centrally and is not readily available without incurring disproportionate costs.
|(1 )Figures are total expenditure taken from the annual Cabinet Office report Public Bodies. No expenditure figures are available for 2004-05.|
(2) Figures taken from the gross annual expenditure taken from the published annual report and accounts for the respective years, where available.
(3) Separate budgetary information is not held centrally as these bodies are either part of core DEFRA or one of its Executive agencies.
The DEFRA inspection and enforcement bodies listed in the table are those included in Philip Hampton's review (published in March 2005) Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement, with information provided from 2001-02 when DEFRA was created.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|