|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to the answer of 8 December 2009, Official Report, columns 279-80W, on young offenders: foster care, what the reasons are for the time taken to complete the peer review process. 
It is usual for a robust peer review process to take some time. The Youth Justice Board received the first draft of the Final Intensive Fostering
Evaluation report in December 2008, with a further chapter on costs submitted at the end of January 2009. Following comments from the Youth Justice Board a revised version was received from researchers in April and sent out to peer review in June 2009. Researchers considered comments from peer review, and submitted revised text in October; further comments and questions are currently being considered and resolved. The final evaluation report is expected to be published in the first quarter of 2010.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance relating to compliance with regulations his Department and its agencies have issued to farmers in the last 12 months. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: Guidance on compliance with regulation, of interest to all farmers, was provided in "Protecting Our Water, Soil and Air: A Code of Good Agricultural Practice for Farmers, Growers and Land Managers", published in January 2009. This guidance brought together and updated three codes for water, soil and air. Information on the Single Payment Scheme and other direct payments is updated and sent annually to farmers.
Other guidance may be intended for specific farming interests. In response to the Sarah Anderson report on Guidance (published in January 2009), DEFRA is identifying its most frequently used guidance on compliance with regulations, much of which applies to farmers, and by 21 December 2009 will publish on the DEFRA website a list of the most frequently used guidance, together with information on when that guidance will be reviewed to bring it in line with Code of Practice on Guidance on Regulation. The Code of Practice was revised in October 2009 to include recommendations from the Anderson review.
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of farms are required under EU regulations to be inspected for cross compliance; and what proportion of farms were inspected for cross compliance in each of the last five years. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: Each Competent Control Authority is required by European legislation to inspect at least 1 per cent. of farmers receiving payments that are conditional on meeting the cross compliance requirements.
The legislation specifies that member states can use pre-existing inspection regimes to satisfy the above requirements. The Rural Payments Agency is required to inspect 5 per cent. (formerly 10 per cent.) of cattle keepers in respect of cattle identification and 3 per cent. of sheep keepers in respect of sheep identification.
| Source: Rural Payments Agency Cross Compliance Database.|
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations he has received in respect of procedures used by the Rural Payments Agency in mapping individual farms for the purposes of the Single Payment scheme in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. 
Dan Norris: The number of representations received by Ministers in respect of mapping issues relating to the single payment scheme (SPS) in each of the last three years are shown in the following table.
|SPS scheme year||Number of representations|
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the (a) smallest and (b) largest penalty for cross-compliance is that has been applied to a payment under the Single Payment scheme in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 
Dan Norris: The figures in the following table represent the smallest and largest payment reductions in monetary terms that the Rural Payments Agency has applied to Single Payment Scheme (SPS) claims in England following breaches of the cross-compliance requirements in the years 2005-08. We do not have a comprehensive set of data for 2009 as processing checks and inspections are not yet complete.
|SPS scheme year||Smallest penalty imposed||Largest penalty imposed|
The smallest 'penalty imposed figures' reflect the fact that under the European legislation governing cross-compliance percentage reductions as low as 1 per cent. may be applied to SPS payments in certain circumstances.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on enforcing minimum standards of animal welfare for animals moved between different countries in Europe. 
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the British Beekeepers' Association to participate in the Project Board charged with implementing the Food and Environment Research Agency's Healthy Bees Plan. 
Dan Norris: The chief executive of the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) has been in dialogue with the president of the British Beekeepers' Association (BBKA), about the Association's decision to withdraw from the Healthy Bees Plan's Project Management Board (the Board). This board represents a wide range of interests which is essential in order to explore solutions to the complex problems affecting pollinators. While both the Board and Fera have expressed their disappointment at the BBKA's decision to withdraw, a clear signal has been given to the Association that it is hoped they will all continue to work together on bee health issues and that the BBKA will rejoin the board at some point in the future.
Lord Davies and Fera have also recently met the BBKA to discuss how this may be taken forward. Subsequently Lord Davies has written to the BBKA with a series of proposals covering matters within DEFRA's control as to how BBKA might re-engage with the board and the range of stakeholders who have an interest in bee health who are represented there.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered because of bovine tuberculosis precautions in (a) Lancashire and (b) the north west in each of the last six months. 
Huw Irranca-Davies: As data from Vetnet are produced three months in arrears, figures cannot be provided for the last three months. The following table shows the number of animals slaughtered(1 )due to a TB incident in Lancashire and the north-west in the last six months for which figures are available(2) (up to August 2009).
(1) Animals slaughtered include those slaughtered as reactors (including inconclusive reactors x 3 and gamma interferon positive reactors), inconclusive reactors and direct contacts in the year to date due to a confirmed, unconfirmed or unclassified TB incident.
(2) Data from Vetnet are provisional and subject to change as more data become available.
|2009||Lancashire||North-west (Government office region)( 1)|
|(1 )The north-west Government office region includes: Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. Source: Vetnet.|
Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of records relating to cows born in the UK that have been lost since September 2008; and if he will make a statement. 
Dan Norris: There are currently 8,768,528 cattle registered on the Cattle Tracing System. From 1 September 2008, 12,638 of these have been reported as being lost or not traced for reasons such as alleged theft. In addition to these, there are 25,289 cattle whose final destination is presently unreported. This is because the British Cattle Movement Service has received notification that the animal has left the holding but has not yet received the subsequent movement report on to the next holding.
Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether (a) his Department and (b) its agencies plan to provide financial assistance to Lichfield district council to meet its statutory obligations for the repair and maintenance in the earth embankment retaining the Chasewater Reservoir; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) if he will undertake an assessment of the effect on the local environment if the earth embankment constructed to retain the Chasewater Reservoir in Lichfield district were to be breached; and if he will make a statement. 
The Environment Agency is the enforcement authority for the Reservoirs Act 1975 in England and Wales. I understand that the Environment Agency has no plans to provide financial assistance to Lichfield district council to repair and maintain Chasewater Reservoir.
As part of the Government's response to the Pitt Review of the summer 2007 floods, the Environment Agency has prepared inundation maps for all large, raised reservoirs. As part of this exercise, it has prepared a map showing the area that would be inundated in Lichfield district in the event of an unplanned breach of
the embankment. Details of the outline breach assessment have been supplied to Lichfield district council, the registered owners of the reservoir. We understand that Lichfield district council has also carried out a further detailed breach inundation study.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Christmas trees were purchased by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; what the cost was of those trees in each year; from where the trees were sourced; what account was taken of the sustainability of the sources of the trees; and by what process the trees were disposed of. 
Dan Norris: Historic information giving the expenditure on Christmas trees by DEFRA and its agencies, from where the trees were sourced, what account was taken of the sustainability of the sources of the trees and the disposal process is outlined as follows.
Information shown is the actual expenditure incurred by DEFRA on Christmas trees by the facilities management partners employed at that time. Historic information held shows that trees were grown in nurseries and taken from site to either be re-cycled or allowed to decay naturally on composting facilities.
|(1 )Seven trees.|
(2) Eight trees.
(3) Tree donated.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|