| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Oct 2009 : Column 1158W—continued
Hill Farming
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hill farmers left the industry in each year since 1997. [291923]
Jim Fitzpatrick: DEFRA does not collect figures on the number of farmers who leave the industry each year. The information collected from the June Survey of Agriculture only allows an indication of net change.
The total number of holdings classified within Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) from 2000-08 are shown in the following table, along with the number of principal farmers working on these holdings. As many holdings are very small, we have also provided an estimate excluding the very smallest holdings considered to require a farmer less than half-time. This gives a better indication of trends.
Figures are only available from 2000 onwards as the method of classifying holdings within LFAs changed in 2006 and results were only backdated to 2000. Therefore, results pre-2000 are not comparable.
| Number of farmers( 1) on LFA holdings | Number of farmers( 1) on LFA holdings of >0.5 SLR( 2) | Total number of LFA holdings | Number of LFA holdings >0.5 SLR( 2) | |
| (1) Farmers are defined as full- and part-time principal farmers, partners, directors and spouses working on holdings. (2) Standard Labour Requirement. The theoretical number of workers required to run a holding, based on its cropping and livestock activities. Results above 0.5 SLR cover farms which require more than half a full-time farmer. Notes: 1. Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) were established in 1975 as a means to provide support to mountainous and hill farming areas. The present LFAs in England are subdivided into two areas. The more environmentally challenging areas within the LFA are classed as 'Severely Disadvantaged Areas' (SDA). The remainder is classified as 'Disadvantaged Areas' (DA). 2. There has been an increase in registered holdings in recent years for several reasons. The introduction of the Single Payment Scheme in 2005 led to large increases in the numbers of holdings registered with the RPA. Large numbers of holdings were also registered for animal tracing purposes particularly following the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001. Source: June Survey of Agriculture and central DEFRA definitions of LFA boundaries. | ||||
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hill farms ceased operating as hill farms in each of the last five years. [291924]
Jim Fitzpatrick: DEFRA does not collect figures on the number of holdings that cease operating each year. The information collected from the June Survey of Agriculture only allows an indication of net change.
The total number of holdings classified within Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) for the past five years are shown in the following table. As many holdings are very small, we have also provided an estimate excluding the very smallest holdings considered to require a farmer less than half-time. This gives a better indication of trends.
| Total number of LFA holdings | Number of LFA holdings >0.5 SLR( 1) | |
| (1) Standard Labour Requirement. The theoretical number of workers required to run a holding, based on its cropping and livestock activities. Results above 0.5 SLR cover farms which require more than half a full-time farmer. Notes: 1. Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) were established in 1975 as a means to provide support to mountainous and hill farming areas. The present LFAs in England are subdivided into two areas. The more environmentally challenging areas within the LFA are classed as 'Severely Disadvantaged Areas' (SDA). The remainder is classified as 'Disadvantaged Areas' (DA). 2. There has been an increase in registered holdings in recent years for several reasons. The introduction of the Single Payment Scheme in 2005 led to large increases in the numbers of holdings registered with the RPA. Large numbers of holdings were also registered for animal tracing purposes particularly following the foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001. Source. June Survey of Agriculture and central DEFRA definitions of LFA boundaries. | ||
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the financial effect on farmers of operating inside the new Nitrate Vulnerable Zones with effect from 1 January 2010. [293634]
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-£68.6 million. The UK's successful negotiation of a derogation from the livestock manure N farm limit, one of the more demanding requirements set by the Nitrates Directive, means these costs could be reduced by £16.9 million to £21.7 million per annum.
The impact assessment can be downloaded via
Ragwort: Disease Control
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research his Department has undertaken on the extent of ragwort poisoning of horses; and if he will make a statement. [293861]
Huw Irranca-Davies: DEFRA has not undertaken any specific studies on the extent of ragwort poisoning of horses. However, DEFRA's policy under the Weeds Act 1959 is to control injurious weeds where there is a threat to animal welfare or agricultural activities.
Natural England investigates complaints about ragwort on behalf of DEFRA and will take enforcement actions where there is a risk of:
Weeds spreading to land used for grazing horses and other animals;
Weeds spreading to land used for the production of conserved forage;
Weeds spreading to land used for other agricultural activities; and
The complainant has already made reasonable efforts to contact the landowner and occupier where the weeds are growing.
DEFRA's code of practice on how to prevent the spread of Ragwort was published in July 2004. DEFRA worked with the British Horse Society, rural consultancy ADAS, English Nature, Wildlife and Countryside Link and other stakeholders to draw up the code. It provides comprehensive guidance on how to develop a strategic and cost-effective approach to weed control. The code gives advice on:
Identification of Common Ragwort;
Risk assessment and priorities for Ragwort control;
Control methods their suitability and efficacy;
Environmental considerations; and
Health and safety issues.
Water
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water resource management plans have been submitted by water companies in England. [293756]
Huw Irranca-Davies: In spring 2008, all 21 English water companies submitted their draft water resources management plans and consulted publicly on them during summer 2008. The Secretary of State has now considered the draft plans, the representations made in respect of the drafts and the water companies' statements of response to the representations. On 3 August 2009 he issued decision letters to the water companies on the next steps.
10 of the water companies are now able to publish their final plans and three have already done so. The remaining 11 are either providing further information in support of their plan, or their plan will be considered further at a public inquiry or hearing.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Burma: Asylum
Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Burmese authorities over the recent attack by Burmese forces on the Ler Per Her refugee camp. [293757]
Chris Bryant: We continue to be deeply concerned about the situation in Karen State, and closely followed reports of fighting in June 2009, including reports of an attack on the Ler Per Her refugee camp. We raised our concerns in a UN Security Council discussion on the protection of civilians in armed conflict on 26 June 2009. The EU, with strong UK support, issued a statement on 11 June 2009 calling for an end to hostilities. It expressed particular concern about the humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict.
We have repeatedly urged both the military regime in Burma and the Karen National Union to intensify their efforts to find a peaceful settlement that will bring about a permanent end to the conflict. Direct representations on this issue were made most recently at meetings between our ambassador and Burmese Ministers on 18 and 19 June 2009. Our embassy in Rangoon continues to monitor the situation closely.
Colombia: Military Aid
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's plans are for the future provision of UK military aid to Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [293008]
Chris Bryant: The Government do not provide military aid to Colombia. I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement on Colombia, laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 30 March 2009, Official Report, column 40WS.
I have, in addition, written to the Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, outlining the work we do in Colombia. A copy of this letter is in the Library of the House.
Overseas Territories
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the net cost to the Exchequer of each UK overseas territory. [292503]
Chris Bryant: The following Government Departments meet the costs of, and provide the majority of the assistance to, the Overseas Territories: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the Department for International Development (DFID), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Department for Transport (DFT) and the Department for Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFRA).
The UK is responsible for 14 Overseas Territories. The following figures cover staff and administration costs in support of defence, sustainable development, safety and security, good governance and the environment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |