|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate he has made of the costs to farmers arising from implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations (2008), which implement the EU Nitrates Directive in England, increase the area designated as nitrate vulnerable zones (NVZs) to approximately 70 per cent. of the country and tighten the mandatory Action Programme of measures that apply within these zones. The Impact Assessment estimates the total annual cost to farmers of complying with the Regulations to be £48.5 million to £68.6 million. With the recent success of the UKs request for a derogation from the livestock manure Nitrogen farm limit, one of the more demanding requirements set by the directive, these costs could be reduced by £16.9 million to £21.7 million per annum.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the proposed designation of Bolton
Fell Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest as a Special Area for Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive as a degraded raised bog capable of natural regeneration; and if he will make a statement. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: Bolton Fell Moss candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) has not yet been formally adopted by the Commission as a Site of Community Importance (SCI). We expect that process to be finalised towards the end of the year. My Department will then institute the necessary procedures to formally designate this site as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive.
Huw Irranca-Davies: DEFRA does not hold data on numbers of stray dogs. Local authorities are required to keep records relating to the stray dogs they take in and are available for inspection by the public, free of charge.
However, the Rural Development Programme for England 2007-13, a joint EU-DEFRA funded programme, provides support to improve quality of life in rural areas and diversify the rural economy. This includes support to encourage rural tourism. Over the seven year life of the programme around €38 million (around £35 million) has been allocated to this measure.
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of changes to credit ratings for water supply companies in the last six months; what assessment he has made of the effect of such changes on the viability of such companies; and if he will make a statement. 
It is our view that the finances of water companies are in good shape. There have been no changes to the credit ratings of the regulated water companies, with the exception of Yorkshire Water where it was downgraded by one credit rating agency, Standard and Poors, from A- to BBB. Standard and Poors clearly cite company specific issues relating to delays in the implementation of a new capital structure as the reason for the downgrade.
However, it is noted that, to date, Yorkshire Water has maintained its A3 rating with another credit rating agency, Moodys.
The regulatory regime operated by Ofwat includes a number of safeguards that protect the interests of customers of water companies should they get into financial difficulties. For example, there is the cash lock-up procedure which prohibits transfers out of the regulated business when a companys credit rating goes below a certain threshold.
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of households who have spent more than three per cent. of their disposable income on water bills in each of the last 10 years. 
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many proposals were made under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to use animals in procedures in 2008; and how many of these proposals were accepted. 
Mr. Malik: During 2008 735 project licences were applied for under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Of these 665 have now been granted, 61 are still being dealt with and nine are not being proceeded with.
A feature of the regulatory regime under the 1986 Act is the discussion that often takes place at an early stage between applicants (or prospective applicants) and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. When serious deficiencies are discovered with the proposals during these early discussions with the local inspectors this means that proposals unlikely to meet the Act's stringent requirements are revised or withdrawn before formal refusal becomes necessary.
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 12 January 2009, Official Report, column 275W, on control orders, whether her Department has made subsistence payments to (a) the individual referred to in the answer and (b) other individuals subject to a control order in 2009. 
Mr. Coaker: The individual mentioned in the answer of 12 January 2009, who was assessed as being ineligible for employment related benefits for a short period as a result of the terms of his control order, did receive subsistence payments from the Home Office. I refer the hon. Member to the information in that previous PQ answer for a breakdown of these subsistence payments.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much expenditure her Department has incurred in removing unsuccessful asylum seekers from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. 
Jacqui Smith [holding answer 16 December 2008]: It is not possible to provide a comprehensive figure for the overall cost of removals and deportations over a specified period of time because there are many different factors which may or may not be involved in the cost of a case (such as detention costs, travel costs, and the cost of escorting the individual in question). We are unable to disaggregate the specific costs and any attempt to do so would incur disproportionate cost.
Mr. Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment she has made of the threat to UK security of the return to the UK of Binyam Mohamed; and if she will make a statement; 
(2) whether conditions have been (a) placed on and (b) agreed with Binyam Mohamed upon his return to the UK; and whether conditions have been attached to his freedom of (i) movement and (ii) action once in the UK. 
Mr. Coaker [holding answer 26 February 2009]: The decision to request the release and return of Mr. Mohamed was taken in light of work by the US government to reduce the number of those detained at Guantanamo with the aim of closing the facility and our wish to offer practical and concrete support to those efforts. In reaching this decision full consideration was given of the need to maintain national security and the Government's overriding responsibilities in this regard. I cannot comment on individual cases but it goes without saying that full consideration has been given to national security.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer of 11 March 2009, Official Report, column 463W, on Binyam Mohamed, when she expects to be able to confirm the residency status of Mr. Mohamed. 
Mr. Woolas: We do not discuss the immigration status of individuals. However, as with any foreign national, consideration will be given as to whether their presence in the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good and, as always, all appropriate steps will be taken to protect national security.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2009, Official Report, column 311W, on vetting: finance, under what budgetary headings the £88.2 million was
spent; and what office accommodation is used by the Criminal Records Bureau for the processing of checks. 
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which former (a) hon. Members who left Parliament since 1997 and (b) Members of the House of Lords from each party have been appointed to positions on public bodies within her Department's responsibility; and who made each appointment. 
Mr. Woolas [holding answer 4 March 2009]: The UK Border Agency does not routinely monitor the treatment of individuals once they are removed from the UK. However, if specific allegations are made that any returnee to Rwanda, or any country, has experienced ill-treatment on return from the UK, then these are investigated through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as a matter of urgency.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those in immigration removal centres are (a) under five, (b) between five and 10, (c) between 11 and 16 and (d) between 16 and 18 years old. 
Jacqui Smith: National Statistics on children detained solely under Immigration Act powers on a snapshot basis are published quarterly. This information is published in tables 9-11 of the Control of Immigration: Quarterly Statistical Summary, United Kingdom bulletins which are available from the Library of the House and from the Home Offices Research, Development and Statistics website at:
Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for tourist visas were (a) received and (b) granted in the latest year for which figures are available; what the average length of time was for processing a tourist visa in that period; and how much it costs to apply for a tourist visa in respect of (i) the US, (ii) Canada, (iii) Australia, (iv) Japan, (v) India and (vi) China. 
|Non-family visit visas|
|Country||Applications received||Visas issued|
|Non-family visit visa processing times October to December 2008 straightforward applications|
|Non-family visit visa processing times October to December 2008non-straightforward applications|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|