Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra Priorities 04)
DEFRA PRIORITIES—QUESTIONS
FOLLOWING HELEN
GHOSH'S
EVIDENCE ON
30 APRIL
Thank you for your letter dated 13 May 2008
setting out the further information requested following the evidence
hearing on 30 April 2008. Please see my responses below with the
request in italics. I hope the Committee will find this information
helpful. If there are any further questions, please let me know.
Helen Ghosh
Permanent Secretary
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
6 June 2008
QQ 225-231—DEL BUDGET
The exchanges on 30 April questioned a gap of
£155 million between the Spring Supplementary Estimate forecast
DEL for 2007-08 (£3.818 billion, comprising £2.929 billion
resource Del and £889 million capital DEL), and that in the
Supplementary Budget information (£3.973 billion, comprising
£3.063.1 billion Resource DEL and £909.7 million Capital
DEL). Some of this difference is, we believe, accounted for by
the presence of the Forestry Commission's spending in the latter
figure. Please can the Department confirm this?
The exchanges on 30 April questioned the gap
between the Spring Supplementary Estimate (SSE) Budget DEL for
2007-08 and the Forecast DEL in the Supplementary Budget Information
(SBI). Budget DEL is the maximum a department is allowed to consume
in a year as set by the Main Estimate and only normally changed
via a Supplementary Estimate[1].
Forecast DEL is our best judgement at any point in the fiscal
year as to where we think we will end up by the end of the year.
Forecast DEL is updated monthly onto the Treasury COINS system.
The SSE does not include a Forecast, as the original exchange
on 30 April understood. So the £155 million is the gap between
the Budget DEL and the Forecast DEL.
The Department confirms that £89 million
of the £155 million gap between the SSE Budget DEL and the
SBI Forecast DEL relates to the Forestry Commission. The balance
of £66 million reflects Defra's worst case forecast out-turn
for the year which as made in February when the data in the Treasury
system (COINS) that produces the SBI was frozen.
Since the time of that forecast, the Department
has continued to manage down the likelihood of any overspend such
that by the time of the Select Committee session, we were confident
that the most likely out-turn was no overspend and this remains
the case. We now wait for the completion of the audits of the
Department's resource accounts and those of the Non-Departmental
Public Bodies that are part of our DEL Budget before confirming
the final outcome.
The Forestry Commission is not included in Defra's
SSE as in 2007-08 the Commission had its own completely separate
Estimate. From 2008-09 the Commission is part of Defra's Estimate
(albeit on a separate Request for Resources). As part of the preparation
of the 2008-09 Defra Main Estimate (but after the SSE work was
completed) the reporting structure within the Treasury system
was updated by them to include the Commission. As the Treasury
system can only hold one reporting structure at any time, this
meant that the SBI tables included the Commission for all years.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
As noted above, the Supplementary Budget Information
published on 22 April showed total DEL for 2007-08 of £3.973
billion. The Main Estimate 2008-09 (HC 479, page 479) and the
Main Estimate Memorandum (page 4) also of 22 April showed total
DEL as £3.913 billion: £3.022 billion Resource DEL and
£891 million capital DEL. Please could Defra explain the
£60 million difference between the two total DEL figures?
The SBI 2007-08 data is a Forecast whereas the
2007-08 column in the 2008-09 Main Estimate is the Provision,
which is another general name for Budget. Provision does not mean
provisional out-turn and so does not mean Forecast. As both sets
of figures include the Forestry Commission, the difference of
£66 million is the Forecast overspend against Budget for
Defra mentioned above less the Forecast underspend against Budget
for the Forestry Commission of £6 million.
The Main Estimate 2008-09 states a provisional
budget outturn for financial year 2007-08 of £3.913 billion
(HC 479, page 479). Figures published at the time of the Treasury's
Comprehensive Spending Review announcement last year (CM 7227,
page 244) stated a total budget for 2007-08 of £3.508 billion.
Please could Defra explain, and thereby reconcile, these figures
The Main Estimate 2008-09 total for 2007-08
of £3.913 billion is not the provisional budget out-turn
(ie it is not the Forecast) but is the final Provision or Budget
for the year. The reconciliation between the two Budget figures
is best summarised in the following table and then explained further
below:
|
| £ billion
|
|
| 2007-08 Budget published within CSR07 | 3.508
|
| Add back depreciation | 0.171
|
| Add back time limited items in budget for 2007-08
| 0.214 |
| Add net increase to Forestry Commission's Budget in their Winter Supplementary Estimate 2007
| 0.012 |
| Add net increase to Defra's Budget in the Winter Supplementary Estimate 2007
| 0.008 |
| 2007-08 Budget per the 2008-09 Main Estimate
| 3.913 |
|
The total Budget for 2007-08 in the Comprehensive Spending
Review (CSR07) was shown net of £171 million of depreciation.
This is because the Capital part of the total Budget includes
capital spending and so including the depreciation of those assets
would lead to double counting. The figure quoted from the 2008-09
Main Estimate does not exclude this depreciation.
The figure quoted from the CSR07 settlement is the baseline
budget for 2007-08 for CSR07 purposes and so excludes £214
million for those items in the 2007-08 Budget that were limited
to 2007-08 only and so did not form part of the negotiations for
the CSR07 years. This is normal Treasury presentation. The time
limited items were:
|
| £ million
|
|
| Fuel Poverty | 105
|
| Carbon Trust | 20
|
| Disallowance provision | 67
|
| Household energy | 5
|
| Transfer to DfID | 5
|
| Headcount reduction | 11
|
| 214 |
|
The remainder of the difference is £20 million which
consists of the net increases to the budgets of the Department
(£8 million) and the Forestry Commission (£12 million)
in their 2007-08 Winter Supplementary Estimates which were completed
after the CSR07 report was delivered. Defra did not seek an increase
to their Budget in their Spring Supplementary Estimates for 2007-08
and the Forestry Commission did not request a Spring Supplementary
Estimate at all.
Q 282—BEES
Please set out what Defra is doing to deal with the threats
of disease in bees
The primary focus for Bee Health policy is to agree a strategy,
in order to identify priorities both for the programme work and
for research.
A draft strategy has been published for public consultation;
comments have been invited by 29 August. Preparation of the draft
strategy included extensive discussions with interested parties
in the beekeeping sector, including the British Beekeepers' Association
(representing hobbyist beekeepers) and the Bee Farmers' Association
(which represents the relatively small number of commercial beekeepers).
Once agreed the Bee Health Strategy will help determine priorities
for action under the Bee Health Programme, particularly in respect
of control of diseases.
The Strategy will help to define who is primarily responsible
for taking action, whether this be the government, the Bee Health
Inspectorate or individual beekeepers. The draft strategy provides
direction and focus for future work on honey bee health. Once
the strategy has been agreed, in the light of public consultation,
we will prioritise resources as necessary to tackle the agreed
priority activities. It is important for beekeepers' representatives
fully to engage with the development and implementation of the
strategy.
A recurring feature of discussions is the need for a strong
education programme, to raise beekeepers' awareness of pests and
diseases and their abilities to control them. This applies as
much to newly emerging threats such as the exotic species Small
Hive beetle or Tropilaelaps mites, as it does to Varroa. Although
the Varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is no longer listed in legislation
and is therefore no longer subject to statutory control, it remains
a major problem for beekeepers. Bee inspectors have continued
to give advice on management of Varroa both in visits to individual
beekeepers and in the training courses they run, often in association
with local beekeeping associations. Varroa can only be controlled
by individual beekeepers, by following advice on treatment, both
with chemicals and through appropriate hive management techniques.
The draft strategy discusses the priority which should be given
to Varroa as well as other problems.
Colony Collapse Disorder
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a generic term adopted
to describe the high level of colony losses that has occurred
in recent years in the USA. The cause is under investigation;
a suite of possible causes is being considered, ranging from stress
caused by the substantial distances over which commercially-kept
honey bees are moved for pollination of crops across the continent,
to pesticide impact. High levels of Varroa are indicated, along
with viruses such as Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus, which has
emerged as a common factor. Losses in the USA are reported as
31% last year and 36% this; these were confirmed in a video conference
with US experts on 13 May.
In the UK the term CCD has been used by the Press and by
beekeepers seeking an explanation for their own losses. The National
Bee Unit investigates reports of higher than normal losses, but
in many cases they find that losses are due to the incorrect application
of Varroa treatments by beekeepers or other failures to manage
hives correctly. There has been a gradual rise in the percentages
of winter colony losses since 2001; this is thought to be due
to the increase in resistance to some Varroa treatments, partly
as a result of overuse of these treatments, for example when the
Varroa numbers are below recommended thresholds.
2008 has seen higher numbers of colony losses reported by
beekeepers. On 14 May 23.3% of colonies inspected had been found
dead, compared to 17.6% on the same date in 2007 (although on
a smaller number—4,500 compared to 7,600—because of
the late spring and therefore the start of the inspection programme).
The figure is inevitable skewed because it reflects problems reported
to inspectors. The overall loss figure for the calendar year 2007
was 11.7%. Experts believe that these are the consequence of the
build-up of viruses and other problems when the bees were confined
to their hives for long periods during the wet summer in 2007,
which also meant that they were unable to build up resources to
carry them through the winter. Weak colonies are more likely to
succumb to Varroa infestations. The situation was exacerbated
by the long cool spring in 2008. If beekeepers did not compensate
by providing additional feed, colony loss was more likely. In
contrast, the recent hot weather in May has allowed healthy colonies
to flourish.
Funding and Resources for the Bee Health Programme
The National Bee Unit is located in Defra's Central Science
Laboratory (CSL). Defra's Plant Health Division has had policy
responsibility for the Bee Health Programme since 1 April 2006
and provides funds to CSL through a Memorandum of Understanding.
By making adjustments elsewhere within its operation CSL have
managed to maintain funding for the NBU for the Bee Health Programme
at the same level, £1.3 million, for some years. Because
of the erosion of inflation there has had to be some prioritisation
within the Bee Health Programme in order to maintain inspector
numbers.
Given the higher level of reported colony losses this year,
accompanied by an increase in imports of queen bees to allow beekeepers
to replace lost colonies, further resources of £90,000 have
been allocated to the National Bee Unit. This will allow for an
increased level of import inspections, additional bee colony inspections
and increased diagnostic work at CSL.
Research
Commissioned research specifically for honey bee health has
averaged around £200,000 for at least five years. In addition,
honey bee health benefits from various other Defra-funded research
activity, so that in 2008-09 total expenditure is close to £390,000.
Projects include:
— Assessing the effectiveness of the shook swarm
method for controlling European Foul Brood.
— Development of a monitoring system for the small
hive beetle.
— The taxonomy of UK and exotic honey bee viruses:
a molecular approach.
— Research on bee pests and diseases in support
of policy: Novel control methods for the notifiable bee pest and
diseases—Small hive beetle and European foulbrood.
— Streamlining honey bee diagnostic services.
— Defra Biosecurity chip, project to develop detection
system for viruses including bee viruses.
— Quantifying the value of ecosystem services: A
case study of honeybee pollination in the natural environment.
Q 285—PET FAIRS
Please indicate when the regulations on pet fairs under the
Animal Welfare Act will be published and come into force
We have recently completed a review of animal welfare activities
for the year ahead. Lord Rooker wrote to Mr Jack on 20 May to
explain that our planned activities for 2008/09 include:- publication
of information leaflets for the public and police on the dangerous
dogs' regulation; regulatory controls on greyhound race tracks;
completion of the circus regulation feasibility study which, on
reflection, Ministers consider is an area where we need to give
further careful thought; regulation of web-screened animal fights,
and subject to competing demands on resources, work to improve
equine welfare. We will also continue to work on codes of practice
for cats, dogs and game birds and begin work on a code of practice
for primates. The planned activities reflect those areas where
there has been most concerns raised in Parliament. Regulations
on pet fairs are not as high a priority and no date can be given
for when this area of work will be pursued.
Background note
When the then Animal Welfare Bill was introduced into Parliament
in 2005, it was the Government's intention to review the legislation
regulating the selling of pet animals soon after the Bill had
received Royal Assent and had come into force, as part of a series
of secondary legislation to be made under the new Act.
The main reason for pet vending being considered a priority was
the need to address the issue of pet fairs in relation to the
Pet Animals Act 1951 (the legislation that regulates the selling
of pet animals for business purposes). There was some uncertainty
as to whether pet fairs could or should be licensed by local authorities
under the 1951 Act in the same way as pet shops are.
However in 2006, while the Animal Welfare Bill was progressing
through Parliament, the High Court made a judgment on a Judicial
Review about the issuing of a licence, under the Pet Animals Act
1951, to the organisers of a pet fair. One of the findings from
the Judicial Review was that local authorities could not issue
licences under the 1951 Act to organisers of pet fairs, where
these events involved the sale of animals, as part of a business,
to members of the public. Thus, the High Court judgment removed
the urgency to review the 1951 Act.
It was also evident from the debates on the Animal Welfare
Bill, that Parliament did not consider the selling of pet animals
to be an urgent priority (in part because of the High Court judgment).
Instead, Parliament considered that other issues such as the use
of wild animals in circuses and the welfare of racing greyhounds
to be more urgent.
Q 314—DEFRA STAFFING
Please set out the numbers of people (broken down by grade)
in the different divisions within Defra's headquarters
Please see attached Excel spreadsheet. (Annex A)
Q 345—RPA STAFFING
How many agency staff are there in the RPA, and what was is
highest that number has been (and when was it)?
The number of employment agency staff at 1 May 2008 was 461
Full Time Equivalents (some are part-time so FTE is the best measure).
The highest number of employment agency staff was 1,406 FTEs during
October 2006.
QQ 332 AND 346-9—COST
AND RESPONSIBILITY
SHARING
The Permanent Secretary stated that Defra had not factored
any cost-sharing into CSR 2007 plans for a £120 million reduction
in the animal health budget. Given that, please explain further
the statement on page 245 of the CSR that £121 million would
be saved by increased sharing of responsibility for animal health
and welfare with the industry, including further utilisation of
cost sharing mechanisms
As I previously explained to the Committee, we currently
anticipate that some two thirds of our net cash releasing savings
for animal health required under our CSR07 Settlement will be
achieved through efficiency gains. The remainder will be met through
a combination of actions including cessation of activities, transfers,
cost sharing and charging. All of these actions are achievable
under the existing animal health and welfare legislative framework
and are in no way dependent or directly linked to the work being
undertaken as part of the wider Responsibility and Cost Sharing
Agenda for Animal Health and Welfare.
The Responsibility and Cost Sharing agenda, which forms a
separate and distinct programme of work within the Department,
is central to the delivery of the vision set out in the Animal
Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain 2004. The aim of
the Programme is to make joint working between industry and government
a reality: with joint decisions on how to prevent, control and
eradicate animal diseases using jointly provided resources. The
partnerships involved in tackling last years Avian Influenza,
Foot and Mouth and Bluetongue disease outbreaks, are excellent
indications of how industry is able and ready to take on greater
responsibility and play an active role in managing disease risks
as well as bearing a fairer share of the associated costs. The
Government wishes to develop and strengthen this partnership and
embed it in new arrangements and plans to consult on specific
proposals later this autumn on how responsibility and costs for
animal health might be shared in the future. Primary legislation
will be necessary to effect how animal diseases are controlled
and funded in the future, although we do not envisage any such
legislation coming into force before 2010-11 at the earliest.
Q 355—WASTE IMPLEMENTATION
PROCUREMENT PROJECT
The OGC tables show that the financial savings for the "waste
implementation—procurement project" were £102
million (29%) below target by the end of December. Why has progress
in this area been so slow? Was the £102 million shortfall
delivered by March 2008?
The Waste Implementation Programme efficiency gains derived
from data reported by Local Authorities for the Environmental
Services workstream in their Annual Efficiency Statements. In
the earlier part of the SR04 period these consisted of a report
in July, reporting the gains achieved by all authorities in the
preceding financial year, and a mid-year update provided each
November by a selection of authorities, reporting gains in the
preceding half year. This process enabled progress to be updated
twice each year. To reduce the reporting burden on local authorities,
OGC and CLG decided that the mid-year update in November 2007
need report only the total gains made by each authority, without
breaking this down by workstream. As a result, Defra has not been
able to update progress made in 2007-08. Forecasts are based on
those made in July 2007 and assume a steady progress throughout
the year.
The target for sustainable efficiency savings arising from
waste management and street cleansing is £299 million per
annum. The figure for progress to the end of March 2007 has been
modified upward from the £245.2 million in the OGC Quarter
3 data to £248.4 million. For the reasons set out above,
no further progress has been reported to December 2007. The current
position is therefore £50.6 million short of the target.
Local authorities forecasted that they would achieve total gains
of £101.8 million for 2007-08, giving a total of £347
million which exceeds the target by £48 million.
We expect these gains to be confirmed by local authorities
in their Annual Efficiency Statements due for submission in July
2008.
Q 357—VALIDATION OF
EFFICIENCY GAINS
How are Defra's efficiency gains externally validated? When
did the National Audit Office last review the EFRA reported efficiency
savings and what conclusions or recommendations did they make?
When will the National Audit Office review the final outturn against
the SR2004 efficiency targets?
Efficiency gains for local authority savings are subject
to external scrutiny from the Audit Commission.
Defra's own efficiency savings have been subject to internal
challenge by the programme team's account managers and the process
for collecting data has been the subject of a review by our Internal
Audit Division.
Our approach to validating Executive Agency efficiency data
collection was the subject of scrutiny by NAO as part of a wider
review of OGC's cross-government efficiency programme. Progress
on delivery of Gershon efficiencies was the subject of a robust
biannual moderation by OGC throughout the life of the programme.
The Efficiency Programme has been the subject of three OGC Gateway
Reviews and all recommendations have been actioned. No recommendations
pertaining to our process for validating data quality were made.
We would expect any further external validation of the efficiencies
we have claimed to be made by NAO commissioned by OGC once all
data has been received and reported. Taking account of various
lags in data collection and validation, OGC expect this to be
the end of October 2008.
Q 370—REVIEW OF
EXTERNAL KNOWLEDGE
CAPABILITY
When will Defra publish the conclusions of Defra's project
to assess its external knowledge capability, on which the Science
Advisory Committee is advising it? (see SAC (07) 08, 14 October
2007) What can Defra tell us at this stage about the review's
main conclusions and budgetary implications?
Partly in response to the recommendations of the House of
Commons Science & Technology Committee inquiry into Research
Council Institutes, and partly due to operational need, Defra
initiated an assessment of its strategic knowledge capabilities
in October 2007. For the purposes of this assessment, strategic
knowledge capabilities are defined as elements of the research
base (expertise, facilities, data sets etc) that provide evidence
or advice critical for Defra's mission and that, if removed, would
require substantial cost or time to re-establish.
The purpose of the work is to provide Defra with a clear
assessment of its current and likely future strategic knowledge
capability requirements and how well these are currently being
provided. Defra needs to ensure it maintains those capabilities
which are central to providing critical advice and evidence for
its policies and operations. The assessment will be used to:
— enable informed strategic discussions with major
evidence partners such as the Research Councils regarding the
sustainability of key aspects of the research base;
— directly inform the departments own longer term
evidence investment plans; and
— if necessary drive changes in the way such capabilities
are supported by Defra
Arthur D Little (ADL) Consultancy have been contracted through
open competition to undertake this assessment, and will provide
this to Defra in the summer (currently estimated to be July 2008).
The project has slipped by a couple of months due to the need
to ensure strategic linkage with a related assessment of UK land-based
capabilities being led by the BBSRC. Defra and the BBSRC have
been collaborating closely over the two related assessments and
will continue to work together (and with other major partners
such as NERC and ESRC) as the results emerge.
There are currently no provisional findings from the review
(these will likely emerge in June). The assessment will not make
budgetary recommendations. It will be for Defra to determine what
budgetary decisions to take as part of its broader evidence investment
business planning, in light of the messages from the assessment.
The project has been scrutinised and challenged throughout
by a sub-group of Defra's Science Advisory Council, SAC-C. The
Science Advisory Council is an independent, non-departmental public
body providing expert advice on science policy and strategy to
the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser.
Defra's Evidence Programme
The Defra Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Bob Watson,
is currently leading efforts to improve how Defra strategically
manages and uses evidence. These efforts are mainly being directed
through Defra's new Evidence Programme, which was formally established
in April 2008. Key elements of this programme, including the development
of an Evidence Strategy, were recently explored at a major workshop
with key Defra staff, colleagues from the Environment Agency and
Natural England and members of the Science Advisory Council. The
Science Advisory Council will continue to play a role in advising
and challenging Defra on this programme.
The assessment of strategic knowledge capabilities outlined
above is just one component of the Evidence Programme and the
results of the assessment will inform the departments new Evidence
Strategy (a key product of the Evidence Programme).
Defra/Research Council Collaborative Centre of Excellence on Natural
and Environmental Risk
Helen Ghosh and Bill Stow referred to a risk research centre
in response to questions 368-370. The Collaborative Centre is
to be jointly funded by Defra, EPSRC, ESRC and NERC. A total of
£1.2 million is available over three years from 2008, with
each partner providing £300k.
The mission of the Centre is to facilitate the provision
of world-leading knowledge, understanding and managing of risk
to provide an evidence base to inform policy development by Defra
and other policy makers.
The sponsors are currently in the process of selecting a
winning bid. Full proposals are due by the end of May and will
then be subjected to expert peer review. A final selection panel
will take place at the end of July and it is hoped that a grant
to the successful applicant can be issued over the summer, with
the director ready to work with Defra from October 2008.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
ON THE
OGC EFFICIENCY REPORTS
OGC guidance [Signing off efficiency data returns] states that
there must be "Ministerial or Permanent Secretary sign off"
for efficiency data reported in the Budget or Pre-Budget Report.
The same guidance (Annex 2) refers to points to consider before
signing-off efficiency gains, which include:
— Quality of service: departments must have quality
measures in place and assessments against them must demonstrate
"no reduction in service quality"
— Data assurance: are controls in place and operating
as intending to ensure the completeness, accuracy and validity
of data during collection, processing and reporting; where sample
data is used, has assurance been gained that the data are representative;
where data have come from external sources have clear guidelines
been issued; where data have come from an external provider, what
steps have been taken to confirm the provider's data is fit for
purpose; are processes and controls clearly documented; are staff
adequately trained in the operation of systems; are responsibilities
for operating controls clearly allocated?
Please describe how these requirements were satisfied by Ministers
or the Permanent Secretary for the £603 million financial
efficiency savings published in table 2.1 of the document 2004
Spending Review: efficiency progress to December 2007 published
alongside the 2008 Budget Report
The Efficiency Programme Office was established to ensure
that the efficiencies that Defra agreed as part of the 2004 spending
review were delivered. A further role was to ensure that performance
and quality standards were not compromised where efficiencies
were being delivered. Each initiative within the Efficiency Portfolio
adopted appropriate metrics for assuring that quality and performance
standards were not compromised in the generation of efficiency.
This aspect was monitored in a number of ways including output
levels, customer satisfaction surveys, internal and external audits,
achievement of Public Service Agreement targets, and corporate
Balanced Scorecard measures.
Examples of the listed approaches are set out below:
Environment Agency—Environment Agency Corporate Balanced
Scorecard. Performance data subject to EA audit and checked by
Efficiency Account Manager.
Veterinary Laboratories Agency—was subject to an independent
science audit, in September 2007, as part of Defra's Quinquennial
Science Audit Programme. The audit examined the quality and value
for money of the Agency's science as well as the scientific outputs
over the last five years. In their report VLA was acknowledged
as a "recognised centre of excellence".
Procurement—a quarterly Value for Money report was produced
and validated by Account Managers.
Most of the agencies conduct an annual Customer Satisfaction
Survey as a requirement of the ministerial targets set for them.
The surveys are sent to a cross section of customers to get a
representative view and a numerical scoring system is used to
collate the responses. The results are then published in their
annual reports.
The OGC efficiency reports show that while the executive agencies
were 20% (£9 million) ahead on their overall financial savings
target by the end of December, efficiency projects run by corporate
services in the centre were some 9% (£15 million) below target.
Why have central services been slower to deliver? Were the shortfalls
in efficiency savings in central service projects delivered by
the end of March 2008?
The savings that were forecast for a number of corporate
areas in the centre were end loaded towards March 2008 and we
can confirm that they were delivered by end March 2008. The savings
include procurement which was a major contributor to the savings
from the centre.
Please supply the Office for Government Commerce [OGC] efficiency
reports submitted by Defra to the Treasury for the period ending
March 2008
Reports attached. (Annexes B-E)
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
June 2008
1
An increase in non-voted DEL Budget can be dealt with by Ministerial
Written Statement but this would be rare. Back
| 
