Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Minutes of EvidenceHC 713

Supplementary written evidence submitted by Defra

Question...During the evidence session on 6 November Mr Gardiner asked about the potential monetary penalties due to the UK failing to meet the Ambient Air Quality Directive (Q 42). In response Mr Taylor said that he thought provisions relating to air quality were currently unquantified in the accounts. I would be grateful if the department could confirm that this is the case.

The Department can confirm that no financial provision is currently included in its accounts for any potential monetary penalties under this Directive.

Question...How much money defrauded from the RPA (Q 61) has been recovered and confirm how many, if any, prosecutions and convictions have resulted from such fraud cases?

The figures for "Total Identified Fraud" on page 24 of the Department’s 2011-12 Annual Report and Accounts (ARA) require a correction and some further explanation. The Total Identified Fraud in 2010-11 at the time of laying the ARA before Parliament should have been £1.021 million and not £0.46 million as stated in the published accounts. This error reflects the omission of £0.539 million of potential RPA grant fraud from the figure published in the ARA. The correct comparative figures at the end of each financial year should therefore be as follows:

If this prior year correction is taken into account, the bulk of the remaining increase in 2011-12 is as stated in footnote 6 on page 26 of the ARA; that is, largely the result of some sizeable potential grant fraud cases detected by RPA, in particular two large Rural Development cases and one Single Payment Scheme case amounting in total to some £2.425 million.

Of the Total Identified Fraud in 2011-12, £3.44 million related to the RPA as a Paying Agency for the Single Payment Scheme and Rural Development Programmes. At the time of laying the ARA before Parliament, this was the estimate of the total potential losses based on the full value of the claims involved. Since then, as reviews have proceeded, this figure now stands at approximately £1 million of potential fraud. The reduction reflects the fact that in some cases after investigation it is considered that fraud did not occur, or that it did not cover the entire value of the claim involved. There are still cases under review.

Of this £1 million potential fraud claimed in 2011-12 under the Single Payment Scheme and Rural Development Programmes, the RPA have so far recovered approximately £40,000 relating to Single Payment Scheme claims. There is normally a time lag in recovery as cases require thorough investigation and review, and proper processes for recovery action need to be followed. The RPA will, however, take recovery action on all cases where this is possible.

In terms of prosecutions and convictions, given the time required to investigate and prepare cases it is too early for most 2011-12 cases to have reached this stage. Decisions on prosecution need to be carefully considered; a significant burden of proof is required to ensure a successful criminal conviction, and the cost of taking action is taken into account. RPA and Defra prosecute fraud where there is a reasonable chance of ensuring successful prosecution. Of the cases identified by RPA in 2011-12, one is currently being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Neither RPA or Defra have any plans to move to "name and shame" those successfully convicted of fraud.

Question...What are the prospects for a vaccine for Schmallenberg virus (Qq 96-98) and have there been delays in licensing any vaccine currently available in other EU Member States?

A number of pharmaceutical companies are currently developing a vaccine for the Schmallenberg virus. Where a new disease occurs, companies can apply for a provisional marketing authorisation in the UK. This is a form of exceptional authorisation which allows a company to market a product whilst they gather further evidence to support a full marketing authorisation. When such a provisional vaccine licensing application is made, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) carry out a rigorous scientific assessment process to ensure that any vaccine is safe and the benefits of use outweigh the risks. It is important that medicines do achieve the outcomes they claim and do not have negative side effects. The length of this process depends on the data presented to the VMD and the assessment needed. Once satisfied with this, the VMD will then grant a provisional marketing authorisation for the product. It is widely reported that one company has recently submitted a dossier of relevant information to the VMD for their consideration.

The VMD is not aware of vaccines being licensed as yet in other EU Member States. Nor is the VMD aware of any marketing authorisation applications made to other veterinary medicines regulators in the EU. It is possible however, that companies have made applications for some form of exceptional authorisation in other countries; companies are not obliged to inform us of this.

There have been no delays in meeting mandatory time-lines for dealing with requests submitted to the VMD for Schmallenberg virus vaccines provisional marketing authorisations.

Question...How many landfill sites are there in England and Wales and is the number decreasing (Q 131)?

There are 509 permitted landfill sites in England and Wales that receive waste. This number has declined from over 2,000 sites in 2001 as a result of the requirements of the EU Landfill Directive on the design, operation and closure of sites.  The number of landfill sites is likely to decline further as more biodegradable and recyclable waste continues to be diverted from landfill. The Environment Agency regulates 1,524 closed landfill sites that have environmental permits for the period of site closure, aftercare and restoration.

Question...How has the department responded to the point made in the Non-Executive Directors Report to the Annual Report and Accounts that "...the absence of an overall prioritisation process has resulted in the "bunching" of delivery deadlines which have then had to be renegotiated"?

This comment refers to Defra’s Business Plan for 2012-15, which sets out the Department’s key commitments in support of its three Coalition Priorities [http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DEFRA-2012-Business-Plan.pdf].  This plan was first published in November 2010 and is reviewed annually in a process run by the Cabinet Office for all departments.

Delivery dates are often linked to external factors, such as the timing of international negotiations and the Parliamentary cycle, which are not wholly within the Department’s control.

The review of the Department’s plan in May 2012 resulted in some amendments to delivery dates.

Question...Why did the department abandoned its plan to research the impact of raptors on game birds and has the department amended the way in which it communicates proposals as a result of the problems experienced with this project?

Richard Benyon, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Natural Environment, Water and Rural Affairs, announced on 30 May 2012 that, following public concern, Defra would look at developing new research proposals into the impact of raptors on game birds. A meeting of the Buzzard Working Group took place on 22 August 2012 chaired by Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser. Members of this group are now considering possible new research proposals. Defra has not made any changes to the way it communicates research proposals but continues to engage and collaborate with key organisations in drawing up such proposals.

February 2013