| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Rural Payments Agency
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 11 January (WA 57-58), for each item of expenditure by the Rural Payments Agency listed in the answer, how much was (a) paid to farmers, and (b) spent on administration; and whether they will estimate the breakdown between payments to farmers and cost of administration of the national ceilings for expenditure under the single payment scheme. [HL692]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): Expenditure shown in the annexe to the reply given to the noble Lord on 11 January (Official Report, cols. WA 57-58) related to scheme payments. No part of it, nor of the separate figures for the single payment scheme national ceilings in the footnote, related to administration expenditure.
Details of RPA's scheme and administration expenditure for each of the last three financial years can be found in the agency's published accounts (publication numbers HC1197 for 2001–02, HC940 for 2002–03 and HC1009 for 2003–04).
Common Agricultural Policy
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reduction or increase in expenditure (expressed in euros) by the United Kingdom on the Common Agricultural Policy is expected from the change from the integrated administration and control system in 2003–04 to the single payment scheme in 2004–05. [HL695]
Lord Whitty: UK expenditure on payments in respect of the first scheme year (2005) of the single payment scheme (SPS) is expected to be around
7 Feb 2005 : Column WA90
€3.7 billion, including an element for the decoupling of dairy premium. This amount compares with expenditure for the 2004 scheme year under the integrated administration and control system of €3.5 billion. The expected increase is therefore €0.2 billion, due primarily to the increasing rates for dairy premium. Expenditure on SPS in subsequent years will depend on a number of factors, including the potential effect of the EU's financial discipline measure.
Bovine Tuberculosis: ISG
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the independent scientific group on bovine tuberculosis will begin its study; by when it has been asked to finalise its report; and whether that report will be placed in the public domain. [HL878]
Lord Whitty: The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) began work on the randomised badger-culling trial in 1998. Analysis of the data collected as part of the trial is ongoing and the ISG have undertaken to notify Ministers of any significant findings, such as those identified in autumn 2003 in relation to the reactive trial areas, and which subsequently led to suspension of the reactive-culling element of the trial.
The group has published three reports to date, summarising progress of the trial and associated research. A fourth report is expected shortly and copies will be made available in the Library of the House.
The ISG has advised that trial operations should be complete in the first half of 2006 with final data analysis commencing shortly thereafter. A final report will be made public.
The ISG, and the Godfray Group which reviewed the RBCT in 2004, have recently been asked to consider the report of the four areas culling trial published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine on 5 January. The groups have been asked to advise on a number of issues, including whether the findings of the Irish research can be applied to the situation in Great Britain. Ministers are expecting advice in early February. The independent scientific advice will be made public.
Badgers: Roads Deaths
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is a mechanism for recording all known badger deaths in addition to road casualties. [HL1033]
Lord Whitty: There is no mechanism for recording all known badger deaths in addition to road casualties.
7 Feb 2005 : Column WA91
Badgers and Bovine Tuberculosis
Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have studied the findings regarding badgers and bovine tuberculosis of the trials conducted in the Irish Republic between 1997 and 2002, which were reported in Preventive Veterinary Medicine on 5 January; and what action they propose to take in response to these findings. [HL1013]
Lord Whitty: We are currently giving careful consideration to the findings of the Irish four area badger culling research. To help us decide on the most appropriate course of action we have asked independent scientists for advice on a number of issues in relation to the study, including whether the findings of the Irish research can be applied to the situation in Great Britain.
The Duke of Montrose asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statistics they collect on badger deaths with reference to tuberculosis infection record the severity of infection in each animal; and [HL1034]
Whether they have found any noticeable correlation between the recording of badgers severely infected with tuberculosis and the proximity of new outbreaks of tuberculosis in cattle. [HL1035]
Lord Whitty: As part of the randomised badger culling trial and the Road Traffic Accident (RTA) survey, the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) is monitoring the severity of infection in badgers culled or killed on the roads.
The ISG is currently analysing data on the prevalence and pathology of TB in badgers collected as part of the badger culling trial and RTA survey and will present these analyses in the peer-reviewed press when completed.
The ISG has advised that the results of post-mortems should not be disclosed. However, information on the location of TB-infected RTA badgers collected outside trial areas is released to divisional veterinary managers to inform the measures they take with respect to disease control in cattle in the vicinity.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many comments to include land in the draft stage of the mapping consultation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 were made by Miss Kate Ashbrook, either as a private individual, board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society, in area 5; how many parcels of land on which Miss Ashbrook commented were subsequently included in the provisional map; what was the total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels
- which subsequently did not appear in the provisional map; how many of those parcels were successfully appealed against; what was the total cost to the Planning Inspectorate and to the agency; in how many of these appeals costs were awarded against the agency; and what were these costs; and [HL1039]
How many comments to include land in the draft stage of the mapping consultation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 were made by Miss Kate Ashbrook, either as a private individual, board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society, in area 6; how many parcels of land on which Miss Ashbrook commented were subsequently included in the provisional map; what was the total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels which subsequently did not appear in the provisional map; how many of those parcels were successfully appealed against; what was the total cost to the Planning Inspectorate and to the agency; in how many of these appeals costs were awarded against the agency; and what were these costs; and [HL1040]
How many comments to include land in the draft stage of the mapping consultation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 were made by Miss Kate Ashbrook, either as a private individual, board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society, in area 7; how many parcels of land on which Miss Ashbrook commented were subsequently included in the provisional map; what was the total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels which subsequently did not appear in the provisional map; how many of those parcels were successfully appealed against; what was the total cost to the Planning Inspectorate and to the agency; in how many of these appeals costs were awarded against the agency; and what were these costs; and [HL1041]
How many comments to include land in the draft stage of the mapping consultation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 were made by Miss Kate Ashbrook, either as a private individual, board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society, in area 8; how many parcels of land on which Miss Ashbrook commented were subsequently included in the provisional map; what was the total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels which subsequently did not appear in the provisional map; how many of those parcels were successfully appealed against; what was the total cost to the Planning Inspectorate and to the agency; in how many of these appeals costs were awarded against the agency; and what were these costs. [HL1042]
Lord Whitty: Ms Ashbrook submitted no comments at the draft map stage for area 5 or area 8. Ms Ashbrook submitted comments as a private individual on 119 parcels in area 6. She did not make any comments as board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society. Some 88 parcels on which she commented were added to the
7 Feb 2005 : Column WA93
provisional map. The total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels which subsequently did not appear on the provisional map was £1,550.
Ms Ashbrook submitted comments as a private individual on 216 parcels in area 7. She did not make any comments as board member of the Countryside Agency or director of the Open Spaces Society. Some 18 parcels on which she commented were added to the provisional map. The total cost to the Countryside Agency in dealing with those parcels which subsequently did not appear on the provisional map was £9,900.
Some 16 appeals in area 6 were made in respect of land which was added to the provisional map as a result of comments made by Ms Ashbrook alone or Ms Ashbrook and others. Eleven appeals have so far
7 Feb 2005 : Column WA94
been determined and in three cases land will be removed from the map as a result of the appeal decision. The Countryside Agency estimates that the cost to it of these three appeals, which were all determined on the basis of written representations, was approximately £90 per appeal.
Fifteen appeals in area 7 were made in respect of land which was added to the provisional map as a result of comments made by Ms Ashbrook alone or Ms Ashbrook and others. We cannot say how many of these appeals will be successful or what the cost will be to the Countryside Agency as none has yet been determined.
Although the appeal work in areas 6 and 7 has not yet been completed, the Planning Inspectorate estimates, based on the costs of determining appeals in other areas, that the average cost to it of determining an appeal is £1,457.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |