By
Christopher Barclay
Agriculture in crisis?. House of Commons Library Research Paper 01/19.
Date
More
Session
More
Department
More
Member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Primary member
More
Filter results
Date
More
Session
More
Department
More
Member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Primary member
More
3,208 results
Agriculture in crisis?. House of Commons Library Research Paper 01/19.
Type
Commons Briefing paper
Subjects
Agriculture; Dairy farming; Export; Disease control; Foot and mouth disease; Export control; Income; Euro; Farmer; Pig; Livestock industry; Sheep; Subsidy; Beef; Exchange rate; Hill farming; Sugar beet; Arable farming; Monetary compensatory amounts
Topics
Animal diseases
Date
6 March 2001
Reference
RP01-19
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/337294
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what payments from public funds are currently being made to farmers with suckler cows; and if he will make a statement. - (Holding answer 5 March 2001).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what payments from public funds are currently being made to farmers with suckler cows; and if he will make a statement. - (Holding answer 5 March 2001).
Asked by
Laurence Robertson
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 February 2001
For answer on
6 March 2001
Answered on
6 March 2001
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what payments from public funds are currently being
made to farmers with suckler cows; and if he will make a statement. [152163]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The payments directed specifically at farmers with suckler cows are suckler cow premiums and
related agrimonetary compensation payments. Farmers who keep suckler cows in the less-favoured areas are also eligible for Hill Farm
Allowances. We are currently paying advance payments of premium to farmers whose claims are submitted toward the end of the 2000
application period. We intend to pay Hill Farm Allowances later this month and suckler cow premium balance payments early next
month.
Subjects
Agriculture; Farmer; Livestock; Subsidy; Suckler cow premiums; Beef premiums
Date
6 March 2001
Reference
152163; 364 c182-3W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_681179
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many suckler cows there are in (a) the UK and (b) Gloucestershire. - Table given. (Holding answer 5 March 2001).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many suckler cows there are in (a) the UK and (b) Gloucestershire. - Table given. (Holding answer 5 March 2001).
Asked by
Laurence Robertson
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 February 2001
For answer on
6 March 2001
Answered on
6 March 2001
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suckler cows there are in (a) the UK and (b)
Gloucestershire. [152289]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 5 March 2001]: The information is as follows:
Number of suckler cows at June 2000 on main holdings
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Number
UK 1,829,464
Gloucestershire 15,388
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Notes: 1. Gloucestershire excludes South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority (formerly part of Avon) 2. Suckler cows are all cows and
heifers in the beef herd that have calved Source: June agricultural and horticultural censes
Subjects
Cattle; Gloucestershire
Date
6 March 2001
Reference
364 c183W; 152289
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_681180
Statement on what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 26th and 27th February; if he will set out the Government's voting record at the Council; and if he will make a statement.
Statement on what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 26th and 27th February; if he will set out the Government's voting record at the Council; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Jim Hood
(Labour)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 February 2001
For answer on
5 March 2001
Answered on
5 March 2001
Mr. Hood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on
26 and 27 February; if he will set out the Government's voting record at the Council; and if he will make a statement. [151992]
Mr. Nick Brown: The Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 26
February. Ross Finnie (Minister for Rural Development, Scottish Executive), Brid Rodgers MLA (Minister for Agriculture and Rural
Development in the Northern Ireland Executive), and Carwyn Jones (Minister for Rural Affairs, National Assembly for Wales), also
attended.
The Council reviewed the main decisions on BSE which it had taken at recent meetings. Member states underlined the importance of
effective implementation of those measures, as well as the need to avoid national measures. On scrapie, the Council endorsed the
Commission's proposals on testing and surveillance and undertook to keep the science under review.
The Council also considered the Commission's proposed seven-point plan responding to the crisis in the European beef market. A wide
range of reactions emerged. The UK supported the need for urgent measures to restore consumer confidence and remove unwanted beef
from older animals from the market, while querying the appropriateness of some of the measures designed to rebalance the beef market
in the medium term. We expressed particular concern about the proposals to require suckler cow premium claims to include a minimum
of 20 per cent. heifers, the introduction of individual quotas for beef special premium and restoration of the 90 head limit on beef
special premium claims.
I gave colleagues in the Council details of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the United Kingdom as well as the measures we are
taking to contain the disease and, in collaboration with the Commission, to prevent its spread to other member states. Commissioner
Byrne and other Ministers expressed great sympathy for UK farmers and their appreciation of the comprehensive measures we are
taking.
Jointly with the Italian delegation, we called for a review of the EU's food labelling policy so that food labels would better
satisfy consumers demands for more information, including, for example, about how food is produced and what it contains. This
initiative was given strong support by Germany and Austria.
Subjects
Disease control; Labelling; Foot and mouth disease; Subsidy; BSE; Beef; EC Agriculture Council; Beef premiums
Date
5 March 2001
Reference
151992; 364 c104-5W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_681460
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many cows were detected with BSE (a) over and (b) under the age of 30 months in each month of (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. - Inc table and figures. (Holding answer 5 February 2001).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many cows were detected with BSE (a) over and (b) under the age of 30 months in each month of (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. - Inc table and figures. (Holding answer 5 February 2001).
Asked by
Jim Cousins
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2001
For answer on
26 February 2001
Answered on
26 February 2001
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cows were detected with BSE (a) over and (b) under the
age of 30 months in each month of (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [148877]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 5 February 2001]: No cases of cows with BSE under the age of 30 months were detected in the period referred
to. The number of cases confirmed in 1999 and 2000 in Great Britain by month of restriction aged over 30 months is as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Month 1999 2000
January 250 140
February 244 147
March 280 145
April 198 104
May 185 131
June 190 93
July 156 81
August 156 94
September 159 91
October 129 113
November 167 105
December 140 {1}62
Total 2,254 1,306
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} There are three cases pending from 1999.
The figures do not include animals tested under the active surveillance programme, which numbered 20 in 1999 and 32 in 2000, as at 9
February 2001 (these figures also include private submissions).
Subjects
Cattle; BSE
Date
26 February 2001
Reference
148877; 363 c501-2W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_683158
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will review the use of yellow tags used to label cows (a) to consider if there is a better alternative tag available and (b) to reconsider the £5 replacement fee for damaged or lost tags. (Holding answer 7 February...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will review the use of yellow tags used to label cows (a) to consider if there is a better alternative tag available and (b) to reconsider the £5 replacement fee for damaged or lost tags. (Holding answer 7 February...
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Cooperative Party)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2001
For answer on
9 February 2001
Answered on
9 February 2001
Mr. Drew: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the use of yellow tags used to label cows (a) to
consider if there is a better alternative tag available and (b) to reconsider the £5 replacement fee for damaged or lost tags.
[148845]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 7 February 2001]: The requirement for cattle eartags is laid down in European Union legislation (Council
Regulation 1760/2000). Any changes therefore would need to be agreed at EU level.
Eartags authorised for official cattle identification are supplied to the industry by a range of eartag manufacturers. The price
they charge for replacement tags is a commercial matter. Farmers may be able to reduce their costs by selecting an alternative
supplier. We are currently investigating the principal reasons for loss or damage to cattle eartags with a view to helping the
industry minimise the need for replacement tags.
Subjects
Costs; Cattle; EU law; Tagging
Date
9 February 2001
Reference
148845; 362 c721W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_684429
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on what date farmers in the Shropshire area were given notification of the new arrangements for hill livestock payments; what the deadline was for applications for payments under this scheme; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on what date farmers in the Shropshire area were given notification of the new arrangements for hill livestock payments; what the deadline was for applications for payments under this scheme; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
2 February 2001
For answer on
9 February 2001
Answered on
9 February 2001
Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date farmers in the Shropshire area were given
notification of the new arrangements for hill livestock payments; what the deadline was for applications for payments under this
scheme; and if he will make a statement. [149288]
Ms Quin: The proposed hill farm allowance (HFA) for England was outlined in the IACS 2000 booklet, distributed to producers in March
2000. This explained that there was no need for producers to submit specific HFA claims. Detailed guidance, issued to English hill
farmers in December 2000, reaffirmed that specific HFA claims are not required. Farmers in the Shropshire areas were treated no
differently.
The deadline for submission of an IACS 2000 application was 15 May 2000 and lead to automatic consideration for HFA 2001 using data
from IACS, the sheep annual premium scheme, the suckler cow premium scheme and details of milk quota held on 31 March 2000. Some
hill farmers will have to supply additional data where we cannot assess automatically their eligibility for HFA payments. They were
written to at the end of January and have three weeks in which to reply.
Subjects
Applications; Hill livestock allowance; Shropshire; Hill farming
Date
9 February 2001
Reference
149288; 362 c721W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_684428
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the planning applications for housing development in England on greenfield sites (a) which he has called in and (b) for which he has issued a holding direction since 7th March 2000, indicating the...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the planning applications for housing development in England on greenfield sites (a) which he has called in and (b) for which he has issued a holding direction since 7th March 2000, indicating the...
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Cooperative Party)
Answered by
Nick Raynsford
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 January 2001
For answer on
25 January 2001
Answered on
25 January 2001
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the planning applications
for housing development in England on greenfield sites (a) which he has called in and (b) for which he has issued a holding
direction since 7 March 2000, indicating the location, number of houses and area of land involved; [146075]
(2) if he will list the planning applications notified to him under the Town and Country Planning (Residential Development on
Greenfield Land) (England) Directive 2000, indicating the location and number of houses and area of land involved in each case;
[146074]
(3) if he will list the planning applications for housing development in England, involving green field sites, which have been
referred to him as departure applications since 7 March 2000 and provide details of the number of homes and area of land involved in
each case. [146073]
Mr. Raynsford: [holding answer 18 January 2001]:
The information is set out in the table. The list of planning applications is based on information supplied to the Department by
local authorities. Assumptions have had to be made about particular applications in order to present the information in the form
sought. The information provided should not be taken as the definitive view of the Secretary of State for the purposes of
decision-making.
Planning applications for housing development on greenfield sites in England
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Site, location and Size of site Number of Departure Greenfield Land Holding Called-in
Government Office Region (hectares) dwellings Direction Direction
Government Office North
West
Higher Lane, Liverpool 4.2 168 Yes Yes
Greensbridge Lane, 8.6 {1}250 Yes
Knowsley
Tollemache Road, Wirral 2.6 {1}100 Yes
Cambridge Road, Sefton 0.1 2 Yes
Lawton Hall, Congleton 5.5 32 Yes Yes
Larch Road, Hyndburn 1 Yes
Manor School, St. Helens 0.7 25 Yes
Woodlands Farm, 1 Yes
Ellesmere Port
Danebank, Vale Royal 0.9 16 Yes
Woodfold Farm, Ribble 1 34 Yes Yes Yes
Valley
Radcliffe Paper Mill, 9 288 Yes
Bury
Whinney Carr Farm, 17.8 535 Yes Yes {2}--
Lancaster
Whittingham Hospital, 28 950 Yes
Preston
Paddock Lane, Trafford 0.2 5 Yes
Government Office West
Midlands
Lambert Cottage, Ash 1 Yes Yes
Magna, Shropshire
Heathcote Home Farm, 3.7 103 Yes
Warwick (Mid and Gen)
Heathcote Home, Farm, 3.4 127 Yes
Warwick (McLean H)
Blackhorse Road, 5.9 {1}116 Yes
Bedworth
Bridgetown, Stratford on 20 {1}500 Yes
Avon
Old Farm House, Craven 1 Yes
Arms, Shropshire
Silver Street, Walsall 9 {1}270 Yes
Newford Valley/Norton 42.7 {1}500 Yes
Colliery, Stoke on Trent
Bishopton Lane, 11.8 {1}175 Yes
Stratford and land to SW
of Birmingham Road,
Stratford
Park Farm Developments, 9.8 {1}425 Yes {2}--
Cannock
Bilton Road, Rugby 8.1 {1}215 Yes {2}--
New Century Park, 6.2 {1}194 Yes {2}--
Coventry
Government Office
Yorkshire and the Humber
Weatherhill Road, 10.5 315 Yes Yes
Lindley, Kirklees
Willowgarth Farm, 17 {1}350 Yes
Whinmoor, Leeds
Weeland Road, 3 74 Yes Yes
Eggborough, Selby
Common Lane, East 0.1 3 Yes
Ardsley, Leeds
Osmondthorpe Lane, Leeds 1.5 70 Yes
Mansfield Road, Aston, 7 199 Yes Yes
Rotherham
Thorpe Hesley, Rotherham 67 {1}1,000 Yes Yes Yes
Government Office for
the East of England
Winston Churchill Drive, 21.9 548 Yes
Kings Lynn
Station Road, 5 {1}150 Yes
Watlington, Norfolk
Aldham Mill Hill, 8.9 {1}220 Yes
Hadleigh, Suffolk
Land North West of 12.5 225 Yes
Soham, Cambridgeshire
Land off Sackvylle 4.3 100 Yes
Street, Debenham,
Suffolk
Off Bell Road, 0.8 14 Yes
Bottisham,
Cambridgeshire
East of England 11 {1}300 Yes Yes Yes
Showground, Peterborough
Land off Fifth Avenue, 6.9 {1}200 Yes
Harlow
Great Totham Road and 2.2 26 Yes
Junction of Witham
Road/Church Road,
Wickham Bishops, Essex
Municipal College 3.7 {1}80 Yes
Playing Fields, Lifstan
Way, Southend-on-Sea
Land off Brompton Close, 0.4 {1}12 Yes
Luton
Black Fan Road, Welwyn 2.5 77 Yes
Garden City
Former allotment land, 0.5 9 Yes
rear of Mill Road, St.
Ippolyts, Hitchin
Government Office North
East
East of Lesbury House, 1.5 14 Yes
Lesbury
Redcar and Cleveland 2.5 60 Yes
College, Redcar
Springwell Road, 7.4 222 Yes
Sunderland
St. George's Hospital, 13.2 {1}150 Yes Yes {2}--
Morpeth
Roseberry Square, Redcar 14 560 Yes
Government Office South
East
Slade Farm, Bicester, 0.6 31 Yes
Cherwell
North Binfields, Old 26.7 326 Yes
Basing, Basingstoke
Pye Land, Selsey, 6 {1}200 Yes
Chichester
Singleton Hill, Ashford 13.5 {1}450 Yes
Singleton Hill, Ashford 5.6 {1}250 Yes
Appletree Farm, Ifield, 5.6 175 Yes
Crawley
Tally Ho Farm, Winkfield 1 Yes
Lynch Gate House, 0.4 5 Yes
Sandhurst
Salisbury Road, 2.3 50 Yes
Hungerford
Abbey Park , Faversham 10.5 180 Yes Yes Yes
Cow Lane, Cosham, 0.3 8 Yes
Portsmouth
Holt Lane, Hook, 28 285 Yes
Hampshire
North Whiteley, Fareham 10.3 180 Yes
East of Botley Road, 2.6 22 Yes
Fareham
Land at Hoadswood, 5.16 81 Yes
Hastings
Government Office East
Midlands
Moss Drive, Bramcote, 1.2 5 Yes Yes Yes
Nottingham
Dale Close, Chesterfield 1.3 {1}39 Yes
Road, Mansfield
Talbot Road, Manton, 0.8 60 Yes
Worksop
Birchwood Lane, South 6.1 140 Yes Yes {2}--
Normanton
Ashtree Farm/Morledge 9 280 Yes Yes
Farm, Matlock
Pewit Golf Course, West 6 150 Yes Yes {2}--
End Drive, Ilkeston
Markham Works, 6 250 Yes
Chesterfield
Avonmouth Drive, Derby 6.5 234 Yes
Ashover House, Malthouse 0.1 17 Yes
Lane, Chesterfield
Woolstitch Farm, 1.9 11 Yes Yes Yes
Netherseal, Derbyshire
Eureka Road, 2.6 53 Yes
Swadlincote, Derbyshire
Bretby Country Club, 0.8 5 Yes Yes Yes
Bretby, Derbyshire
Fleckney Road, Kibworth, 18 300 Yes Yes {2}--
Leicestershire
Newark Road, South 4.1 73 Yes Yes {2}--
Hykeham, Lincolnshire
Weston, Lincolnshire 14.4 276 Yes Yes Yes
Bedford Road, 7.1 24 Yes
Northampton
Bourne, Lincolnshire 115 2,000 Yes Yes
Desborough, 26 450 Yes Yes Yes
Northamptonshire
Torksey, Lincolnshire 3.7 27 Yes
Bedford Road., 6.8 {1}204 Yes Yes
Northampton
Pineham North, 20 350 Yes Yes
Northampton
Ripingale, Lincolnshire 1.4 29 Yes Yes
Naseby, Northamptonshire 0.2 5 Yes Yes
Government Office South
West
Crossways, Dorchester 4.8 150 Yes Yes
Betton Way, 4.7 {1}150 Yes Yes
Moretonhampstead
Shaftesbury Lane, 4.9 {1}140 Yes
Blandford
Oakfield, Tiverton 9.2 160 Yes
Old Hill, Helston, 0.9 2 Yes
Cornwall
Ocotal Way, Swindon 3.6 145 Yes Yes
Haydon Road, Swindon 260 {1}5,500 Yes
St. George's, 13.5 501 Yes
Weston-super-Mare
Mintons & Bruton Way, 3.7 {1}130 Yes
Chard
Middle Hill, Crewkerne 5.7 76 Yes
Holton Heath, Wareham 93 1,350 Yes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Estimated number of dwellings {2} Decision from Secretary of State pending Notes: Column 1: Sites are those which are
predominantly greenfield (i.e. not previously-developed as defined in Annex C of Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing) wherever
located. Column 2: Site size includes only those areas proposed for housing and directly associated uses. Column 4: Notified to the
Secretary of State since 7 March 2000 in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultation)
(Departures) Directions 1999. Column 5: Notified to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Residential Development on Greenfield Land) (England) Direction 2000. Column 6: Direction made since 7 March 2000 restricting the
grant of permission in exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995. Column 7: Planning application called in since 7 March 2000 for the Secretary of State's own
decision under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Subjects
Construction; Housing; Green belt; Local government; Planning permission; Vacant land
Date
25 January 2001
Reference
361 c669-74W;361 c671-5W; 146075;146074;146073
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_687187
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what the reasons were behind the delay in early payments to farmers of the suckler cow premium. - Includes figure.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what the reasons were behind the delay in early payments to farmers of the suckler cow premium. - Includes figure.
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 January 2001
For answer on
22 January 2001
Answered on
22 January 2001
Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the reasons were behind the delay in early payments to
farmers of the suckler cow premium. [145919]
Ms Quin: Producers who submit Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS) claims early in the application period normally receive advance
payments from November onwards. Advances in respect of 2000 Scheme year claims began in December.
The reason why payments began later than in previous years stems from the introduction of a rule allowing producers to claim premium
on heifers, up to a limit of 20 per cent. of the total number of animals on the claim. The rule was introduced as part of the Agenda
2000 package of CAP reforms. Although it is relatively straightforward in itself, it necessitated a number of detailed changes to be
made, including to the computer system used for making SCPS payments. These changes have taken longer to make than the usual year on
year changes which are normally made to the system. As a result, the facilities were not available to RSCs to enable the advances to
be paid in November.
Subjects
Agriculture; Administrative delay; Livestock; Subsidies; Suckler cow premiums
Date
22 January 2001
Reference
361 c408-9W;361 c409-10W; 145919
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_688098
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, by when he expects his Department to have distributed all the early payments of the suckler cow premium to farmers. - Ref to 360 c454-55W of 8 January 2001.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, by when he expects his Department to have distributed all the early payments of the suckler cow premium to farmers. - Ref to 360 c454-55W of 8 January 2001.
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 January 2001
For answer on
18 January 2001
Answered on
18 January 2001
Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by when he expects his Department to have distributed all the
early payments of the suckler cow premium to farmers. [145920]
Ms Quin: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 8 January 2001, Official Report,
columns 454-55W.
Subjects
Farmers; Payments; Suckler cow premiums
Date
18 January 2001
Reference
361 c347W; 145920
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_688670
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will indicate, in respect of each component item of the farm aid package announced on 30th March 2000, (a) if it has been accounted for as DEL or AME expenditure and (b) what proportion has been paid to (i)...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will indicate, in respect of each component item of the farm aid package announced on 30th March 2000, (a) if it has been accounted for as DEL or AME expenditure and (b) what proportion has been paid to (i)...
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 December 2000
For answer on
16 January 2001
Answered on
16 January 2001
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate, in respect of each component item of the farm
aid package announced on 30 March 2000, (a) if it has been accounted for as DEL or AME expenditure and (b) what proportion has been
paid to (i) farmers and (ii) other intended recipients to date. [144398]
Mr. Nick Brown: [holding answer 8 January 2001]:
The Action Plan for Farming, launched at the Farming Summit on 30 March was supported by £203.5 million. The components of this, how
they have been accounted for, and the proportion paid to farmers and other intended recipients to date are as listed.
Action plan for farming
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Measure Value Accounted for as DEL or AME Proportion paid to
farmers/other intended
recipients to date
Introduced a scheme to encourage £26 million (in 2000-01) DEL --
the restructuring of the pig
industry in order to improve its
long-term viability. (UK wide)
Pay to dairy farmers all the £22 million (in 2000-01) AME 99.9 per cent. (£21.9 million)
agrimonetary aid that EU rules
permit this year only. (UK wide)
Pay agrimonetary compensation to £22 million (in 2000-01 and AME 39 per cent. (£8.6 million)
beef farmers of £22 million this 2001-02)
year only. Payments will be made
in connection with Beef Special
Premium, Suckler Cow Premium and
Extensification Payments for the
2000 scheme year. (UK wide)
Agrimonetary compensation to £22 million (in 2000-01 and AME 100 per cent. (£22 million)
sheep farmers of £22 million this 2001-02)
year in respect of 1999 scheme
year claims. (UK wide)
Increase support for hill farmers £60 million (in 2000-01) DEL --
beyond the level specified in the
Rural Development Plans submitted
to the Commission. (UK wide)
Seek from the Commission an £20 million (estimate) (in DEL 49 per cent. (£12.3 million
increase in the maximum weight 2000-01){1} estimated expenditure)
per animal on which compensation
is payable under the
over-30-months scheme. (UK wide)
Remove charges for dairy hygiene £1 million (in 2000-01) DEL Value represents an estimated
inspections in England as soon as annual saving to industry
the necessary legislation can be
put in place
Hold the increase in meat £4.5 million (in 2000-01) DEL Value represents an estimated
inspection charges for 2000-01 to annual saving to industry
the rate of inflation. (GB wide)
Increase the rate of grant under £3.5 million (in 2001-02) DEL --
MAFF's Farm Waste Grant Scheme
from 25 per cent. of eligible
expenditure (under which uptake
has been low) to 40 per cent.
(England only)
The Government will double the £4 million (in 2000-01) DEL 0.7 per cent. (£28K) (Quarter 1
Regional Development Agencies' figures)
Redundant Building Grant
Programmes, which operates in
Rural Priority Areas, to £8
million in 2000-01. (England
only)
The Government will allocate £2.3 £2.261 million (over two years: DEL 12 per cent. (£273K)
million to create in England a £0.3 million in 2000-01 and
European Centre for organic fruit £1.961 in 2001-02)
and nursery stock.
A single charge for authorisation £4.7 million over four years{2} DEL 56 per cent. (£2.65 million)--
to dispose of used sheep dip, (estimated cash benefit in
equivalent to the current 2000-01)
application charge of £85, should
cover the full four-year period
of the initial authorisation.
This means that the current
annual charge of £107 will not be
payable during the first
four-year period. (England and
Wales)
Business Restructuring in England:
The Government will pump-prime £1 million (in 2000-01) DEL 45 per cent. (£450K)
the drive to improve the
competitiveness of farmers by
providing funding for business
improvement, on a challenge
basis, following the model of the
Agriculture Development Scheme
1999
The Government will provide £1.2 million (in 2000-01){3} DEL 52 per cent. (£935K)
funding of £1.2 million to Lantra
(National Training Organisation
for the Landbased Sector) to
promote the economic benefits of
training and to analyse the
training needs of farm business
The Government will help farmers £6.5 million (in 2000-01){4} DEL 10 per cent. (£851K)
develop better business practices
through tailored business advice.
As farmers increasingly diversify
their businesses, they will be
able to draw on the wider
expertise and services of the
Small Business Service
The Government will continue to £0.5 million (in 2000-01) DEL 75 per cent. (350K)
support the Rural Stress
Information Network by extending
for at least a further year the
secondment of a MAFF official to
that organisation. MAFF will also
increase the provision of free
advice to those farmers referred
to it by certain organisations.
The Government will increase its
support to voluntary bodies
dealing with rural stress on the
basis of an action plan drawn up
with them. The final payments, 25
per cent. (£125K), are due to be
made by 1 March 2001.
Launch an electronic portal for £0.4 million (in 2000-01) DEL 40 per cent. (160K)
farming
Business restructuring aid for £2 million (in 2000-01) DEL DARD--NAWAD-- SERAD 100 per
Scotland, Wales and Northern cent. (£1.046 million){5}
Ireland
Total 203.5 -- --
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Revised estimate now £25 million {2} Estimated saving to industry {3} Allocation now £1.8 million--includes element of hill
support funding {4} Allocation now £8.5 million--includes element of hill support funding {5} In the course of 2000-01 the Scottish
Executive has incurred additional costs of some £4 million towards advancing its electronic data transfer and service delivery
systems, both of which offer significant improvements to farm business management in Scotland. The cost of these measures is greatly
in excess of the £1.046 million provided for under the Action Plan for Farming
Subjects
Agriculture; Expenditure; Government assistance; Subsidies
Date
16 January 2001
Reference
361 c138W;361 c138-41W; 144398
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_688994
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what has been the total expenditure on production subsidies for each of the past 10 years. - Including table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what has been the total expenditure on production subsidies for each of the past 10 years. - Including table.
Asked by
Christopher Gill
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 December 2000
For answer on
8 January 2001
Answered on
8 January 2001
Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total expenditure on production subsidies for
each of the past 10 years. [144043]
Ms Quin: The figures are set out in the table. They cover expenditure on: Arable Area Payments Scheme (cereals, oilseeds, linseed
and protein), Sheep Annual Premium Scheme, Beef Special Premium Scheme, Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and Beef Deseasonalisation
Scheme, and include both national and EU contributions. The major increase in expenditure in 1993-94 reflects the switch from price
support to production subsidies in the MacSharry reform. The farming industry also benefits from higher food prices as a result of
the CAP, which are paid for by consumers.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
April/March (financial years) £ million
1989-90 188.3
1990-91 281.7
1991-92 431
1992-93 434.7
1993-94 1,288.9
1994-95 1,538.3
1995-96 1,956.7
1996-97 2,089.3
1997-98 1,896.9
1998-99 2,039.6
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Agriculture; Contribution; EU budget; EU grants and loan; Production; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Arable farming
Date
8 January 2001
Reference
144043; 360 c452W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_690646
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many farmers have been paid the advanced suckler cow premium since 1st November; how many are awaiting payment; and if he will make a statement on progress regarding the regular payment of the ASCP on an agreed basis; if he...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many farmers have been paid the advanced suckler cow premium since 1st November; how many are awaiting payment; and if he will make a statement on progress regarding the regular payment of the ASCP on an agreed basis; if he...
Asked by
Anthony Steen
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 December 2000
For answer on
8 January 2001
Answered on
8 January 2001
Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farmers have been paid the advanced suckler cow
premium since 1 November; how many are awaiting payment; and if he will make a statement on progress regarding the regular payment
of the ASCP on an agreed basis; [143950]
(2) if he will add interest at the rate of 8 per cent. to the advanced suckler cow premium due to be paid to farmers on 6 December;
and if he will make a statement. [143949]
Ms Quin: In England, just under 19,800 producers submitted a 2000 Scheme year Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS) claim. Of these
around 15 per cent. had received their first advance payments by 5 January.
Although the Citizen's Charter deadline for making advance payments is 6 March 2001, we fully expect that all producers who
submitted a correctly completed claim will receive their advance payments during January. In addition, we have taken advantage of a
very recently agreed Commission Regulation to make suckler cow advance payments at a rate of 80 per cent. of the total amount due,
rather than the usual 60 per cent. The published Citizen's Charter target for making advance SCPS payments for the 2000 Scheme year
is 6 March 2001. Interest would be considered only in cases where payments were made after this date, and where MAFF was fully
responsible for the delay.
Subjects
Agriculture; Interest rate; Farmer; Payment; Subsidy; Suckler cow premiums; Sheep premiums
Date
8 January 2001
Reference
360 c454-5W;360 c454W; 143950;143949
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_690373
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the effect on quota values of including heifers in the suckler cow quota. - Including figures.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the effect on quota values of including heifers in the suckler cow quota. - Including figures.
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 December 2000
For answer on
15 December 2000
Answered on
15 December 2000
Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on quota values of
including heifers in the suckler cow quota. [142255]
Ms Quin: The inclusion of heifers on suckler cow premium claims up to a maximum of 20 per cent. is only one of a number of factors
contributing to the recent rise in lease and sale values of suckler cow premium quota. Its effects cannot be determined in
isolation. Other relevant factors include: the reduction in the overall availability of quota resulting from the Agenda 2000
settlement; the lack of any allocation from the national reserve this year; the seasonally high demand to secure quota before the
end of the suckler cow premium claim period--6 December.
Most farmers already have sufficient quota to support their claims; only a small percentage of the 1.7 million units of quota in the
UK is traded each year.
Subjects
Agriculture; Livestock; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Quotas; Suckler cow premiums
Date
15 December 2000
Reference
359 c275W;359 c273W; 142255
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_595139
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which farm subsidy schemes will be modulated as part of the ERDP. - List given. (Holding answer 6 November 2000).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which farm subsidy schemes will be modulated as part of the ERDP. - List given. (Holding answer 6 November 2000).
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 October 2000
For answer on
28 November 2000
Answered on
28 November 2000
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which farm subsidy schemes will be modulated as part of the ERDP.
[136494]
Mr. Nick Brown: [holding answer 6 November 2000]:
In order to fund additional measures in the ERDP, all farmers who receive direct payments under CAP support schemes will have those
payments modulated from 2001. These schemes are: Sheep Annual Premium Scheme Beef Special Premium Scheme Suckler Cow Premium Scheme
Slaughter Premium Scheme Extensification Premium Scheme Arable Area Payments Scheme (including flax and hemp) Hops Seeds Potato
Starch.
Subjects
Agriculture; Environment protection; EU grants and loan; Subsidies; Rural development plans
Date
28 November 2000
Reference
357 c568-9W;357 c569W; 136494
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_598011
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many successful claims were made in 1999 for each of the farm subsidy schemes that will be modulated as part of the ERDP. - Includes figures.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many successful claims were made in 1999 for each of the farm subsidy schemes that will be modulated as part of the ERDP. - Includes figures.
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 October 2000
For answer on
28 November 2000
Answered on
28 November 2000
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful claims were made in 1999 for each of the farm
subsidy schemes that will be modulated as part of the ERDP. [136760]
Mr. Nick Brown: The numbers of successful claims made in England in 1999 for each of the farm subsidy schemes that will be modulated
to fund additional measures in the ERDP were as follows: Arable Area Payments Scheme: 74,189 Flax and Hemp: 1,918 Hops: 14 Seeds:
1,154 Potato starch: 101 Sheep Annual Premium Scheme: 33,176 Beef Special Premium Scheme: 112,393 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme:
21,873.
The new Slaughter Premium and Extensification Premium Schemes will also be modulated.
Subjects
Agriculture; Environment protection; EU grants and loan; Subsidies; Rural development plans
Date
28 November 2000
Reference
357 c569W; 136760
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_598012
That this House notes that the constitution of India prohibits the cruel treatment of cows, bullocks and buffaloes being taken to slaughter, and that the Indian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act mandate that all animals shall receive humane treatment; recognises the protests being voiced by the international community, and by Indian citizens resident in the United Kingdom, regarding the need for Indian authorities to enforce India's animal transport and slaughter laws; believes, with deep disappointment, that it is common practice during the transport and slaughter of Indian cattle for them to be overloaded onto lorries, particularly in border crossings from Tamil Nadu into Karnataka and Kerala, to be marched hundreds of miles without food or water, to have their tails intentionally broken and their eyes deliberately injured with tobacco and chilli peppers to compel them to stand when they collapse, and for their final slaughter often to be inhumane; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to urge the Indian Government to immediately engage in meaningful discussions directed toward the consistent and effective enforcement of the current laws prohibiting cruelty to animals.
That this House notes that the constitution of India prohibits the cruel treatment of cows, bullocks and buffaloes being taken to slaughter, and that the Indian Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act mandate that all animals shall receive humane treatment; recognises the protests being voiced by the international community, and...
Primary sponsor
Ashok Kumar
(Labour)
Type
Early day motion
Subjects
Animal welfare; Cattle; India
Date
20 November 2000
Reference
1162
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/edms/17441
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) undertaken into the possibility that cow dung used as a fertiliser could transmit BSE in cattle to humans as CJD; what were the findings; and what advice he has issued on the matter.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) undertaken into the possibility that cow dung used as a fertiliser could transmit BSE in cattle to humans as CJD; what were the findings; and what advice he has issued on the matter.
Asked by
Austin Mitchell
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
7 November 2000
For answer on
20 November 2000
Answered on
20 November 2000
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) undertaken into
the possibility that cow dung used as a fertiliser could transmit BSE in cattle to humans as CJD; what were the findings; and what
advice he has issued on the matter. [137624]
Ms Quin: No work has been commissioned to demonstrate directly that cow dung used as fertiliser could transmit BSE to humans as CJD.
In studies commissioned by MAFF, BSE infectivity has been found in the wall of the gut of cattle that were given BSE infected cattle
brain by mouth, but none has been seen in the gut of natural cases of BSE. Analysis of data from the epidemic (by the Veterinary
Laboratories Agency (VLA) and other groups) suggests that horizontal transmission between animals does not occur, by any route. It
has proved difficult to test faeces directly for infection, as it is highly toxic to mice, but no infection has been transmitted to
mice from the faeces of cattle experimentally infected with BSE. Although MAFF has not issued advice on this matter, SEAC have
considered and issued advice on the disposal of excreta from experimentally infected cattle. The Committee's advice applies
specifically to experimentally infected cattle and SEAC has not issued broader advice on this question.
Subjects
Research; BSE
Date
20 November 2000
Reference
357 c60-1W; 137624
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_600028
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he will publish the results of research involving embryos from BSE-affected cows fertilised by BSE bulls implanted into heifers imported from New Zealand.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he will publish the results of research involving embryos from BSE-affected cows fertilised by BSE bulls implanted into heifers imported from New Zealand.
Asked by
Christopher Gill
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 November 2000
For answer on
13 November 2000
Answered on
13 November 2000
Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of research involving embryos from
BSE-affected cows fertilised by BSE bulls implanted into heifers imported from New Zealand. [137575]
Ms Quin: Preliminary results from this research project have already been published{1}. All of the post mortem results obtained to
date for implanted heifers and their offspring have been negative for BSE. The experiment is still ongoing and will continue until
June 2001 when the offspring will have reached seven years of age. Full results will be published once the analysis of the data is
complete.
{1 }Wrathall, AE(2000): Livestock Production Science 62,287-316
Subjects
Animal breeding; Research; BSE
Date
13 November 2000
Reference
356 c463W; 137575
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_601409
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he plans to take to address the dairy cattle health and welfare problems associated with further intensification of the dairy industry and a rise in the number of dairy cattle housed indoors throughout the year, in the Government's response...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps he plans to take to address the dairy cattle health and welfare problems associated with further intensification of the dairy industry and a rise in the number of dairy cattle housed indoors throughout the year, in the Government's response...
Asked by
Jim Fitzpatrick
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
30 October 2000
For answer on
7 November 2000
Answered on
7 November 2000
Mr. Fitzpatrick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to address the dairy cattle
health and welfare problems associated with further intensification of the dairy industry and a rise in the number of dairy cattle
housed indoors throughout the year, in the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of dairy
cattle. [136035]
Mr. Morley: The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 1870), which came into force on 14 August this
year, regulate the conditions in which all cattle and calves should be kept, covering such things as accommodation, ventilation,
lighting, feed and water, and inspections. Similar regulations will shortly enter into force in Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland. Revision of our Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Cattle is nearly complete and will reflect FAWC's advice on best
practice on all-year housing; we shall shortly consult with all stakeholders on our draft. We have also commissioned a research
project involving behavioural studies relating to the welfare of intensively managed dairy cows. And, through the agricultural
consultancy ADAS, we run an extensive programme of guidance for dairy farmers.
Subjects
Animal housing; Animal welfare; Cattle; Dairy farming
Date
7 November 2000
Reference
356 c150W; 136035
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_602716
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list chronologically the actions taken since 1997 to provide support for farmers, by way of (a) extra cash, (b) policy initiatives and (c) promotion of agricultural products. - Includes figures.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list chronologically the actions taken since 1997 to provide support for farmers, by way of (a) extra cash, (b) policy initiatives and (c) promotion of agricultural products. - Includes figures.
Asked by
Win Griffiths
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 October 2000
For answer on
2 November 2000
Answered on
2 November 2000
Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list chronologically the actions taken since
1997 to provide support for farmers, by way of (a) extra cash, (b) policy initiatives and (c) promotion of agricultural products.
[135393]
Ms Quin: The Government are committed to developing a framework within which the farming industry can continue to adapt to change.
Since May 1997, we have introduced a number of policy measures, injecting £670 million (excluding agrimonetary aid) into the
industry. These measures include:
Early 1998
We introduced several initiatives offering extra support to farmers, not all of which cost money, but which in total were worth more
than £150 million to the industry. We:
(i) paid £85 million in agrimonetary compensation to suckler cow and sheep producers at the beginning of the year;
(ii) supported the introduction of an EU private storage aid scheme for pigmeat in the face of a fall of about 50 per cent. in the
producer price of pigs. Additional action was taken in Northern Ireland;
(iii) relaxed rules on the moisture content of cereals eligible for purchase intervention, in recognition of the difficulties caused
to cereals producers by the wet summer;
(iv) successfully lobbied the EC to grant two blocks of private storage aid for sheepmeat to help move lamb on the market. With
effect from 8 October we removed the obstacles to the export of whole sheep carcases to France;
(v) successfully negotiated the introduction of the Export Certified Herds Scheme in Northern Ireland;
(vi) persuaded the EC to increase beef premium advances from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent.;
(vii) met the costs for one year of Meat Hygiene Service enforcement of controls on specified risk material from cattle and sheep;
(viii) met the start up and first year running costs of the new Cattle Tracing System.
16 November 1998
Announcement of a further aid package of £120 million, to provide:
(i) extra agrimonetary compensation in the form of supplementary payments under the Suckler Cow Premium Scheme;
(ii) increased payments under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme (£60 million);
(iii) extension of the Calf Processing Scheme until the end of the financial year.
July 1999
We successfully negotiated the introduction of the Date-Based Export Scheme for eligible British beef from 1 August.
20 September 1999
£150 million in new money announced:
(i) £89 million in deferral of charges for inspections of specified risk material from cattle and sheep carcases and for cattle
passports until 2002-03;
(ii) £60 million in HLCA;
(iii) £1 million in marketing support.
28 October 1999
Announcement of £15 million in new money:
(i) £5 million in marketing support;
(ii) £10 million for organic farming; Plus:
(iii) Review of regulatory burdens in agriculture: three industry-led working groups reported in December 1999 on three priority
areas identified by the industry: IACS and Inspections, Intervention and Meat Hygiene and Slaughterhouse Rules. Government accepted
98 of the 107 recommendations made. In addition a number of other issues identified for review have been considered in bilateral
discussions between MAFF and industry. Implementation of the recommendations is a priority under the Action Plan for Farming.
1 December 1999
We pegged Meat Hygiene Charges: charges for 1999-2000 held at 1998-99 levels.
7 December 1999
Announced `New Direction for Agriculture', including £1.6 billion (over seven years) England and Rural Development Plan. £300
million of which is new money. The Plan (now `Programme') was approved by the European Commission's Star Committee in September
2000, and launched on 3 October 2000.
1 February 2000
Original labels on food: Following consultation, tough new guidance notes were issued on 1 February to industry and enforcement
authorities. These make clear the need to ensure origin labels on food are unambiguous. They emphasise the need to pay special
attention to the wording of origin and other declarations when the country of final processing of a food and the source of its main
ingredients may be confused.
30 March 2000
Farming Summit: The Government launched the Action Plan for Farming, supported by £200 million. The Plan will provide financial
relief to the hardest-hit sectors to help ease the process of change. Other commitments are directed towards rural development and
diversification, better regulation, improved food chain co-operation, making the best of IT opportunities and continued commitment
to CAP reform.
The 2000 Spending Review provides a further £300 million to carry forward initiatives under the plan over the next three years.
Subjects
Agriculture; Government assistance; Farmer; Origin marking; Subsidies; Monetary compensatory amounts
Date
2 November 2000
Reference
355 c620-2W; 135393
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_603594
Confirmation of BSE in a cow born after 1 August 1996 in the United Kingdom. MAFF. 2000.
Confirmation of BSE in a cow born after 1 August 1996 in the United Kingdom. MAFF. 2000.
Deposited by
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Type
Deposited paper
Author
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Committed on
18 October 2000
Originated on
11 September 2000
Received on
18 October 2000
Subjects
Cattle; Diagnosis; Disease; Health hazard; Disease control; BSE
Commons Library location
Dep 00/1535
Lords Library location
HINF 2000/1832
Date
18 October 2000
Reference
Dep 00/1535
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/depositedpapers/2233976
Supplementary on agricultural subsidies and feed additive to reduce problem of methane produced by cows.
Supplementary on agricultural subsidies and feed additive to reduce problem of methane produced by cows.
Asked by
Gordon Prentice
(Labour)
Oral question - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
27 July 2000
Subjects
Agriculture; Pollution control; Subsidies; Methane
Date
27 July 2000
Reference
354 c1224
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_820539/-question
Whether a full epidemiological study, to include exposure of the affected animal or her dam to veterinary medicines such as vaccines and hormone injections containing bovine tissues, organophosphate parasiticides, or feeds which were likely to have contained residues of organophosphate grain dressings, will be conducted on the four-year old Holstein...
Whether a full epidemiological study, to include exposure of the affected animal or her dam to veterinary medicines such as vaccines and hormone injections containing bovine tissues, organophosphate parasiticides, or feeds which were likely to have contained residues of organophosphate grain dressings, will be conducted on the four-year old Holstein...
Asked by
Countess of Mar
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hayman
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
13 July 2000
Answered on
13 July 2000
Subjects
Cattle; Disease control; Research; BSE
Date
13 July 2000
Reference
HL 3217; 615 c43WA
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_932484
Lords reform: major developments since the House of Lords Act 1999. House of Commons Library Research Paper 00/60.
Lords reform: major developments since the House of Lords Act 1999. House of Commons Library Research Paper 00/60.
By
Oonagh Gay; Oonagh Gay
Type
Commons Briefing paper
Subjects
House of Lords; House of Lords composition; House of Lords Appointments Commission; Public appointment; Life peer; Reform; Reform of the House of Lords Royal Commission; Two-chamber legislatures
Date
14 June 2000
Reference
RP00-60
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/337351
That this House congratulates the Government of the Philippine Republic on their Act of 1998 which promotes animal welfare in the Republic; notes with great concern that despite the legislation the illegal killing of dogs for food still continues; respectfully requests the Philippine Government to recognise the repugnant nature of this practice to many countries around the world; and calls upon the relevant authorities to enforce the terms of the 1998 Act by stamping out the selling of dogs for food.
That this House congratulates the Government of the Philippine Republic on their Act of 1998 which promotes animal welfare in the Republic; notes with great concern that despite the legislation the illegal killing of dogs for food still continues; respectfully requests the Philippine Government to recognise the repugnant nature of...
Primary sponsor
Lord Stratford
(Labour)
Type
Early day motion
Amended by
George Galloway
Amended on
16 July 2000
Subjects
Animal welfare; Dog; Food; Philippines
Date
8 June 2000
Reference
825; 825A1
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/edms/18202
What scientific evidence there is that Mycobacterium bovis may be present in the milk of cows that have not been shown to be tuberculosis reactors. [HL 2566].
What scientific evidence there is that Mycobacterium bovis may be present in the milk of cows that have not been shown to be tuberculosis reactors. [HL 2566].
Asked by
Countess of Mar
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
6 June 2000
Answered on
6 June 2000
Subjects
Cattle; Animal product; Disease control; Milk; Research; Bovine tuberculosis
Date
6 June 2000
Reference
HL 2566; 613 c153WA
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_834584
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, in what year the first vaccine was used on humans which may have utilised bovine material from BSE-infected cows in the early stage of manufacture. - Inc fact that this information is not available.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, in what year the first vaccine was used on humans which may have utilised bovine material from BSE-infected cows in the early stage of manufacture. - Inc fact that this information is not available.
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Yvette Cooper
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 May 2000
For answer on
23 May 2000
Answered on
23 May 2000
Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what year the first vaccine was used on humans which may have utilised bovine
material from BSE-infected cows in the early stage of manufacture. [122973]
Yvette Cooper: This information is not available because the precise date of the emergence of BSE in cattle is not known and it is
also not known if bovine material for use in the manufacture of vaccines was taken from BSE-infected cattle.
Subjects
Animal products; Drug; Disease control; Safety; Vaccination; BSE
Date
23 May 2000
Reference
122973; 350 c424W;350 c426W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_617901
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many powdered milk tokens were provided by the Western Health and Social Services Board in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (a) what was their face value in (i) Limavady Council District, (ii) Londonderry Council District...
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many powdered milk tokens were provided by the Western Health and Social Services Board in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (a) what was their face value in (i) Limavady Council District, (ii) Londonderry Council District...
Asked by
William Ross
(Ulster Unionist Party)
Answered by
George Howarth
(Labour)
Answering body
Northern Ireland Office
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 May 2000
For answer on
22 May 2000
Answered on
22 May 2000
Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many powdered milk tokens were provided by the Western
Health and Social Services Board in the last 12 months for which figures are available and (a) what was their face value in (i)
Limavady Council District, (ii) Londonderry Council District and (iii) Strabane Council District and (b) how many (i) chemists and
(ii) other outlets provided this service in each of the council districts; and what checks he has carried out to determine whether
only those chemists authorised to do so have returned such tokens for payment by the Board. [121254]
Mr. George Howarth: The Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust within the Western Health and Social Services Board area
accepted 109,821 powdered milk tokens in the 12 month period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999, which are the latest figures
available.
(a) Powdered milk tokens are reimbursed at the same face value in the Limavady Council District, Londonderry Council District and
Strabane Council Districts by Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland Trust. The face values reimbursed at December 1999 were as
follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
£
SMA White & Gold 5.99
Cow and Gate Plus and Premium 5.69
Farleys 1 & 2 5.61
Milupa Milumil 5.87
Milupa Aptamil & Aptamil Extra 6.58
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
(b) (i) The number of chemists authorised to accept milk tokens in each Council District are as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
District
Limavady Council District 4
Londonderry Council District 26
Strabane Council District 14
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
(ii) No other outlets within these Council Districts are authorised to accept powdered milk tokens.
Foyle HSS Trust and Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust accept powdered milk tokens only from those chemists authorised to participate in the
NI Welfare Foods Scheme.
Subjects
Pharmacy; Milk; Voucher scheme; Health and social services boards; Foyle
Date
22 May 2000
Reference
121254; 350 c330W;350 c332W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_618167
How many cases of human infection by Mycobacterium bovis have occured since the inception of tuberculin testing of cattle in the United Kingdom; and how many occurred as a result of ingestion of infected cows milk and how many from infected meat. [HL 2293]. - Includes figures.
How many cases of human infection by Mycobacterium bovis have occured since the inception of tuberculin testing of cattle in the United Kingdom; and how many occurred as a result of ingestion of infected cows milk and how many from infected meat. [HL 2293]. - Includes figures.
Asked by
Countess of Mar
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
16 May 2000
Answered on
16 May 2000
Subjects
Animal products; Diagnosis; Disease; Disease control; Milk; Bovine tuberculosis
Date
16 May 2000
Reference
HL 2293; 613 c15WA
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_911564
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when agrimonetary compensation will be made available for the arable, beef and sheep sectors in (a) 2000 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when agrimonetary compensation will be made available for the arable, beef and sheep sectors in (a) 2000 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Eddie McGrady
(Social Democratic & Labour Party)
Answered by
Adam Ingram
(Labour)
Answering body
Northern Ireland Office
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
26 April 2000
For answer on
9 May 2000
Answered on
9 May 2000
Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when agrimonetary compensation will be made available for the
arable, beef and sheep sectors in (a) 2000 and (b) 2002; and if he will make a statement. [120755]
Mr. Ingram: In terms of optional agrimonetary compensation payments to the sheep sector will be made with the first advance on ewe
premium in July 2000.
The bulk of payments to the beef sector, i.e. beef special premium and suckler cow premium will be made from October 2000.
In terms of compulsory agrimonetary compensation the second instalment of compensation to beef and arable producers will be paid
from October 2000 with the third instalment a year later. The third instalment for sheep is likely to be paid in April 2001.
No payments are presently planned for 2002.
Subjects
Compensation; Agriculture; Farmer; Northern Ireland; Livestock industry; Sheep; Beef; Arable farming; Monetary compensatory amounts
Date
9 May 2000
Reference
349 c374W; 120755
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_620086
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which took place in Gigiri, Kenya, from 10th to 20th April. - Inc...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which took place in Gigiri, Kenya, from 10th to 20th April. - Inc...
Asked by
Colin Burgon
(Labour)
Answered by
Michael Meacher
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 May 2000
For answer on
9 May 2000
Answered on
9 May 2000
Mr. Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome
of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species which took place in Gigiri, Kenya,
from 10 to 20 April. [121623]
Mr. Meacher: A record 130 countries attended the Conference, which took place in a positive and friendly atmosphere in the excellent
facilities provided at UNEP HQ.
The Conference considered 62 proposals to amend the species covered by CITES, which are listed in two Appendices. Appendix I lists
highly endangered species which are prohibited in international commerce. Appendix II lists other endangered species in the table,
which includes details of the final position taken by the UK (in accordance with the EU's common position) on those proposals which
were put to the Conference for decision.
The UK achieved its main objective on the key proposals for elephants, turtles and whales. Our own proposal to list the basking
shark on Appendix II achieved 61 per cent. support--the highest vote for any of the three shark proposals before the Conference.
Unfortunately a two-thirds majority was required and the majority of states which use basking shark fins voted against our efforts
to ensure that fisheries were managed sustainably and trade levels monitored.
We were particularly disappointed that representatives from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) intervened in the debate on
behalf of overseas fishing industry interests, and partly disowned their own technical report which showed that species like the
basking shark are particularly suitable for CITES management. Given the continuing threat to this species, and the strength of our
scientific case which was widely acknowledged, the Government intend to work with our European Union colleagues to list the basking
shark on Appendix III of CITES as soon as possible. If agreed, this would make any transaction between the EU and other states in
basking shark products subject to the EU CITES Regulations.
Another major UK proposal at the Conference--to establish a working group to address unsustainable trade in bushmeat--has been
strongly endorsed. Initially, the working group will focus on the management of bushmeat harvesting and trade in six African
countries with particular problems such as dislocation caused by irresponsible forest exploitation by international timber companies
and unsustainable demand for bushmeat from urban areas. My Department is making £50,000 available in the current financial year to
support this initiative, and we look forward to contributions from other CITES Parties and non-Governmental bodies.
I would also like to highlight two other UK achievements at the Conferences. First we ensured that most of the tough recommendations
made in the recent CITES Tiger Missions, led by the UK, were endorsed and that countries which fail to implement them can as a last
resort face wildlife trade sanctions. As a potential consumer state, the UK will continue to maintain a vigilant profile through
education, detection and prosecution to prevent any revival in the use of tiger products for traditional medicine in this country.
Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to representatives of HM Customs and Excise and the Police who organised a widely praised
exhibition of the UK's work to enforce CITES. Two recent convictions in the UK for illegal trade in shahtoosh and parrots have
demonstrated the increasing commitment of statutory enforcement agencies to tackle wildlife crime. I hope that the proposed Wildlife
Crime Unit, which I announced on 16 February, will enable us to build on these achievements.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Species--scientific name Species--common name Proposal UK/EU final position Outcome
Fauna
Crocodylus niloticus Nile crocodile Increase export quota Support Adopted
(Tanzania pop.) for wild-taken specimens
Manis crassicaudata Manis Indian pangolin \ Uplist (AII to AI). \ Adopted as amended
pentadactyla Manis javanica Chinese pangolin | Amended \ Support as amended |
Malayan pangolin / to remain in AII with /
zero |
wild quota /
Tursiops truncatus ponticus Black Sea Bottle Nosed Uplist (AII to AI) Abstain Withdrawn
Dolphin
Eschrichtius robustus Grey Whale Downlist (to AII) Oppose Rejected
(Eastern N. Pacific stock)
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale Downlist (to AII) Oppose Rejected
(S. Hemisphere stock)
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale Downlist (to AII) Oppose Rejected
(Okhotsk Sea--W. Pacific
stock)
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke Whale Downlist (to AII) Oppose Rejected
(NE Atlantic, N. Atlantic
Central stock
Parahyaena brunnea Hyaena De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Loxodonta africana (South African Elephant Downlist (to AII). Support as amended Adopted as amended
African pop.) Non-ivory trade only
Loxodonta africana African Elephant Commercial ivory quota Oppose Withdrawn
(Botswanan pop.)
Loxodonta africana (Namibian African Elephant Commercial ivory quota Oppose Withdrawn
pop.)
Loxodonta africana African Elephant Commercial ivory quota Oppose Withdrawn
(Zimbabwean pop.)
Loxodonta africana (App. II African Elephant Uplist (AII to AI) Oppose Withdrawn
pops.)
Loxodonta africana (App. II African Elephant Annotation amendment (re Support Adopted
pops.) "appropriate and
acceptable
destinations")
Dugong dugon (Australian Sea Cow Uplist (AII to AI) Abstain Adopted
pop.)
Vicugna vicugna (App. I Vicuna Downlist (to AII) Support Withdrawn
pops.)
Vicugna vicugna (App. II Vicuna Delete zero quota for Support Adopted
pops) trade in cloth
Moschus spp. (App. II pops.) Musk deer Uplist (to AI) Oppose Withdrawn
Ovis vignei (unlisted sub Urial List non AI pops. on AII Support as amended Adopted as amended
spp.)
Rhea pennata pennata Lesser Rhea Downlist (to AII) Support Adopted
(Argentine pop.)
Falco rusticolus (N. Gyr Falcon Downlist (AI to AII) Oppose Rejected
American pop.)
Eunymphicus cornutus Horned Parakeet Uplist (AII to AI) Support Adopted
cornutus
Eunymphicus cornutus Ouvea Parakeet Uplist (AII to AI) Support Adopted
uveaenisis
Garrulax canorus Melodious Laughing List (on AII) Oppose (but support Adopted
Thrush AIII)
Cuora s.l. Box Turtles List (on AII) Support Adopted
Clemmys guttata Spotted turtle List (on AII) Oppose Rejected
Geochelone sulcata African spurred tortoise Retain AII with zero Support Adopted as amended
wild quota
Malacochersus tornieri Pancake tortoise Uplist (AII to AI) Support Withdrawn
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle Downlist (to AII) Oppose Withdrawn
(Carib. pop. in Cuban waters
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Turtle Downlist (to AII) for Abstain Rejected
(Carib. pop. in Cuban waters one-off sale of shell
stocks
Crocodylus moreletii (Sian Belize crocodile Downlist (to AII) n/a Withdrawn before the
Ka'an, Quintana Roo pop.) Conference
Varanus melinus Quince monitor lizard Uplist (AII to AI) Oppose Withdrawn
Crotalus horridus Timber rattlesnake (List on AII) Oppose Withdrawn
Bufo retiformis Sonoran green toad De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Mantella spp. (except M. Malagasy poison frog List (on AII) Support Adopted
aurentiaca)
Rhincodon typus Whale shark List (on AII) Support Rejected
Carcharodon carcharias Great white shark List (on AI) Support AII Rejected
Cetorhinus maximus Basking shark List (on AII) Support Rejected
Latimeria spp. (except L. Coelecanth List (on AI) Support Adopted
chalumnae)
Latimeria menadoensis Menado coelacanth List (on AI) Support (only if above Withdrawn
proposal failed)
Poecilotheria spp. Ornamental tarantula List (on AII) Oppose Rejected
Flora
Popophyllum hexandrum; and Combine with annotation Support Adopted (also referred
Rauvolfia serpentina for Taxus wallichiana to Plants Committee)
Ceropegia spp. De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Frerea indica De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Byblis spp. Rainbow Plant De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Disocatus macdougalli McDougal's cactus Downlist (to AII) Support Adopted
Sclerocactus mariposensis Lloyds Mariposa cactus Downlist (to AII) Support Rejected
Cephalotus follicularis Albany pitcher plant De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Dudleya stolonifera Laguna Beach Liveforever \ \ \
Dudleya traskiae Santa Barbara Island | Downlist (to AII) | Support | Adopted as amended
Liveforever / / /
(a) Cyathea spp. and \ Tree ferns (a) amend listing to \ Adopted
| Cyathea \ |
| spp. (inc. Alsophila, |
| Nephelea, | Support |
Sphaeropteris,
Trichipteris) |
and Cibotium barometz |
(b) Dicksonia spp. / (b) amend listing to |
Dicksonia| |
spp. (originating in /
Americas)|
and Cibotium barometz /
Shortia galacifolia Oconee-Bells De-list (from AII) Support Withdrawn
Lewisia cotyledon Siskiyou Lewisia; \ \ \
Maguire's Bitter-root; | De-list (from AII) | Support | Adopted as amended
Saw-toothed Lewisia / / /
Darlingtonia californica California Pitcher Plant De-list (from AII) Support Adopted
Panax ginseng (roots) Ginseng List (on AII) Support Adopted as amended
Araucaria araucana Monkey puzzle tree Uplist (AII to AI) Support Adopted
(Argentine pop.)
Cactaceae spp. De-list (from AII) Oppose Withdrawn (but decision
adopted)
Kalmia cuneata Laurel De-list (from AII) Support Withdrawn
Camptotheca acuminata Happytree List (on AII) Open Withdrawn
Cistanche deserticola Desert living Cistanche List (on AII) Support Adopted as amended
Harpagophytum procumbens; Grapple plant List (on AII) Support Withdrawn
Harpagophytum zeyheri
Adonis vernalis Herb of spring adonis List (on AII) Support Adopted as amended
Guaiacum sanctum Brazil wood Uplist (to AI) Oppose Withdrawn (but decision
adopted)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Notes: 1. AI = Appendix I of CITES (species banned in commerce). 2. AII = Appendix II of CITES (species regulated in commerce).
Subjects
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; Animal product; Nature conservation; Wildlife
Date
9 May 2000
Reference
121623; 349 c363-8W;349 c363-7W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_620250
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of recent studies on maternal transmission (a) of the BSE infective agent in cattle and (b) of related infections in other mammalian species.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of recent studies on maternal transmission (a) of the BSE infective agent in cattle and (b) of related infections in other mammalian species.
Asked by
Lynne Jones
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
11 April 2000
For answer on
2 May 2000
Answered on
2 May 2000
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of recent studies on maternal
transmission (a) of the BSE infective agent in cattle and (b) of related infections in other mammalian species. [119035]
Ms Quin: MAFF have funded a large-scale experiment to assess whether embryos collected from cows in the late stages of BSE infection
and then transplanted into TSE-free recipient cows from New Zealand, go on to develop BSE later in life. Offspring will be observed
for seven years for the development of BSE. The study is due to end next year but so far none of the offspring have shown any signs
of BSE. This provides experimental evidence to indicate that BSE is not transmitted to embryos by the maternal route.
Similar studies have been performed in sheep infected with scrapie but results have been difficult to interpret because of the
complex genetic factors that influence scrapie susceptibility in sheep. Epidemiological work is ongoing to investigate the natural
routes of transmission of scrapie, however, it is too early to make an assessment of the results obtained so far.
Subjects
Cattle; Disease; Disease control; Research; BSE; Epidemiology; Scrapie
Date
2 May 2000
Reference
119035; 349 c99W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_621528
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the (a) deferred road schemes by authority featured in the Local Transport Settlement for 2000-01 and (b) road schemes contained in the provisional local transport plans for 2001-02 to 2004-05; if he will...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the (a) deferred road schemes by authority featured in the Local Transport Settlement for 2000-01 and (b) road schemes contained in the provisional local transport plans for 2001-02 to 2004-05; if he will...
Asked by
Michael Moore
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Keith Hill
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 April 2000
For answer on
18 April 2000
Answered on
18 April 2000
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the (a) deferred road
schemes by authority featured in the Local Transport Settlement for 2000-01 and (b) road schemes contained in the provisional local
transport plans for 2001-02 to 2004-05; [119716]
(2) if he will ensure that road schemes costing more than £5 million contained in full local transport plans will not be accepted by
the Government unless there is clear evidence that alternative solutions to traffic problems have been considered first, along with
a statement of why such solutions have been rejected. [119717]
Mr. Hill: A decision to defer consideration of the following major road schemes until the Full Local Transport Plans are received
this year was announced last December in the Provisional Local Transport Settlement for 2000-01:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Area Scheme
Barnsley Cudworth Bypass
Birmingham Northfield Regeneration
Birmingham Selly Oak Access Road
Bristol A4 Bath Road to Callington Road Link
Cheshire A34 Alderley Edge Environmental Bypass
Cumbria Carlisle Northern Development Route
Darlington Darlington Cross Town Route Eastern Section
Derby Derby Spur Extension
Derbyshire Markham Employment Growth Zone
Devon Barnstaple Western Bypass
Dorset Weymouth Transportation and Regeneration Project
East Sussex Newhaven Port Access Road
Kent East Kent Access (Phase 1)
Kent East Kent Access (Phase 2)
Leeds East Leeds Link Road
Leeds Leeds Inner Ring Road (Stage 7)
Lincolnshire Future Major Economic Regeneration Scheme
Liverpool Hall Lane Area Improvement
Medway A228 Chattenden to Ropers Lane
Middlesbrough East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor
North East Lincolnshire South Humber Bank Link Road (Stage 2)
Rotherham West Bawtry Road Improvement
Rutland Oakham/(Langham) Bypass
Sandwell Cradley Heath Town Centre Strategy (A4100)
Sheffield Inner Relief Road--Stages II and III
Staffordshire Biddulph Bypass
Staffordshire Rugeley Eastern Bypass Stage 2
Stoke-on-Trent Hanley Bentilee Link
Suffolk South Lowestoft Relief Road
Surrey A244 Cross Thames Transport Corridor
Wiltshire Western Wiltshire Regeneration Corridor
Wirral Birkenhead Town Link Division
Worcestershire Wyre Piddle Bypass
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
The following decisions were reached on the remaining major road schemes contained in the Provisional Local Transport Plans:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Area Scheme
Accepted:
Essex A131 Great Leighs Bypass
Leicestershire Ashby Bypass Stage 2
Norfolk Broome and Ellingham Bypass
Nottingham (G.N.) A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Improvement
Shropshire A53 Hodnet Bypass
Somerset Bridgewater Northern Distributor
Staffordshire Burntwood Bypass
Stockton-on-Tees South Stockton Link
Provisionally accepted:
Barnsley Coalfields Link Road Phases 2 and 3
Bedfordshire A507 Ridgmont Bypass and Woburn Link
Bedfordshire Bedford Western Bypass
Buckinghamshire A4146 Stoke Hammond and Linsdale Western Bypass
Cambridgeshire A142 Fordham Bypass
Doncaster A6023 Denaby Main Division
Hertfordshire Baldock Bypass
Manchester, Salford Manchester/Salford Inner Relief Road (Regent Road/Gore Street)
North Yorkshire Scarborough Integrated Transport Scheme
Nottinghamshire A617 Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route
Suffolk Stowmarket B1115 Relief Road
Rejected:
Birmingham Dudley Road Traffic Management Phase 2
Cornwall Grampound Bypass
East Sussex Bexhill and Hastings Link Road
Norfolk Great Yarmouth A47/A149 Link Road
Reading Cow Lane Bridges/Oxford Road Relief Road
Rotherham A57(T) Todwick Crossroads to M1 J31
Stoke-on-Trent Tunstall Northern Bypass
Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Link
Warwickshire Barford Bypass
West Sussex Angmering Bypass
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
The "Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans" which was published in March of this year makes it clear that before major road schemes
can be accepted for funding if bid for in the Full Local Transport Plans, local authorities will need to demonstrate that there is a
problem that needs addressing and that they have looked for alternative solutions, in accordance with the principles of New Approach
to Appraisal.
Subjects
Construction; Roads; Repairs and maintenance
Date
18 April 2000
Reference
348 c456-7W; 119716;119717
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_622263
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what was the value of the farm aid package announced on 30th March, and if he will publish a breakdown of the components of the farm aid package, listing for each component (a) its value, (b) its funding source, (c) eligible...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what was the value of the farm aid package announced on 30th March, and if he will publish a breakdown of the components of the farm aid package, listing for each component (a) its value, (b) its funding source, (c) eligible...
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 April 2000
For answer on
17 April 2000
Answered on
17 April 2000
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of the farm aid package announced on 30 March,
and if he will publish a breakdown of the components of the farm aid package, listing for each component (a) its value, (b) its
funding source, (c) eligible recipients, (d) conditions of eligibility, (e) time of availability, (f) budgetary year, (g) whether it
has previously been announced by (i) the Government and (ii) the European Commission and (h) if it has been approved by the European
Commission and, if not, when he expects such approval to be given. [117970]
Mr. Nick Brown: [holding answer 6 April 2000]: The Action Plan for Farming discussed at the Farming Summit on 30 March outlined a
programme of measures to help provide a proper, structured plan for the future. The aid measures amounting to over £200 million are
listed. Many of the other measures within the Action Plan will also have considerable benefit to the farming industry, though it is
not as yet possible to quantify these.
Action plan for farming (13 April 2000)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Measure Value (£ Funding source Eligible Time of Previously EC approval
million) recipients and availability announced
conditions of
eligibility
Introduce a scheme to {1}26 UK To be announced To be announced No An aid
encourage the notification has
restructuring of the pig been submitted
industry in order to to the EC
improve its long term
viability
Pay to dairy farmers all {1}22 UK (£11 million) Aid will be To be announced No An aid
the agrimonetary aid and EU{3} allocated in notification
that EU rules permit proportion to will be
this year only milk quota held submitted to the
on 31 March 2000 EC this month
Pay agrimonetary {1,2}22 EU{3} Payments will be The majority No An aid
compensation to beef made in will be payable notification
farmers of £22 million connection with in November, and will be
this year only. Payments Beef Special the remainder in submitted to the
will be made in Premium, Suckler the second EU this month
connection with Beef Cow Premium and quarter of 2001
Special Premium, Suckler Extensification
Cow Premium and Payments for the
Extensification Payments 2000 scheme year
for the 2000 scheme year
Agrimonetary {1}22 EU{3} Paid to Sheep Payments will be No An aid
compensation to sheep Annual Premium made with the notification
farmers of £22 million claimants in first advances will be
this year in respect of respect of the of Sheep Annual submitted to the
1999 scheme year claims 1999 scheme year Premium in EC this month
July/August
Increase support for {1}60 UK The majority of LFA support No The scheme has
hill farmers beyond the the moneys will payments are been submitted
level specified in the be added to the made in the to the EC for
Rural Development Plans budgets for the early months of approval under
submitted to the LFA compensatory each year the Rural
Commission allowances, Development
which will be Regulation; the
modified to changes will
assist need to be
restructuring so discussed with
as to strengthen the EC
the industry and
to make it
better able to
deliver the
social and
environmental
benefits
provided by
extensive sheep
and beef
grazing. The
remainder will
finance a
consultancy
programme to
improve hill
farmers' access
to business
skills
Seek from the Commission {4}20 UK Payable in To be determined No The Over Thirty
an increase in the respect of Months Scheme
maximum weight per cattle for cattle is an
animal on which slaughtered EU scheme and
compensation is payable under the Over thus changes to
under the Over Thirty Thirty Months its rules
Months Scheme Scheme require the EC
to make a
proposal to be
adopted by the
Beef Management
Committee on
which all member
states are
represented. A
formal request
to that effect
has been made to
the EC
Remove charges for dairy {1}1 UK All dairy To remove the No EC approval not
hygiene inspections in production charge, the needed
England as soon as the holdings in Dairy Products
necessary legislation England (Hygiene)
can be put in place (Charges)
Regulations 1995
will need to be
amended, which
we estimate will
take three
months
Hold the increase in {1}4.5 UK All operators of 2001-01 Confirmation EC approval not
meat inspection charges licensed meat that the required
for 2000- 01 to the rate plants in GB increase in Meat
of inflation Hygiene charges
will be kept to
the level of
inflation and
announcement
that this is
equivalent to
£4.5 million in
2000-01
Increase the rate of {2}3.5 UK Payable to As soon as EC No Existing scheme
grant under MAFF's Farm farmers in approval is is an approved
Waste Grant Scheme from Nitrate obtained State Aid.
25 per cent. of eligible Vulnerable Zones Approval is
expenditure (under which installing being sought for
uptake has been low) to improved manure an increase in
40 per cent. storage and rate
handling
facilities to
comply with
regulatory
measures
The Government will {1}4 UK Redundant farm To be announced No Existing scheme
double the Regional building owners is an approved
Development Agencies' State Aid
Redundant Building Grant
Programme, which
operates in Rural
Priority Areas, to £8
million in 2000-01
The Government will {5}2.3 UK UK Capital The European No EC approval not
allocate £2.3 million to Modernisation Centre will be required
create in England a Fund located at
European Centre for Horticulture
organic fruit and Research
nursery stock International in
East Malling,
Kent
A single charge for {6}4.7 UK Small For first No EC approval not
authorisation to dispose dischargers authorisation required
of used sheep dip, including
equivalent to the farmers who dip
current application sheep and need
charge of £85, should to dispose of
cover the full four-year sheep dip to
period of the initial land
authorisation. This
means that the current
annual charge of £107
will not be payable
during the first
four-year period
Business Restructuring in England:
The Government will {1}1 UK Industry, Scheme will be No Existing scheme
pump-prime the drive to organisation and launched in the is an approved
improve the partnerships next few weeks State Aid.
competitiveness of Approval will be
farmers by providing sought for
funding for business changes to the
improvement, on a scheme
challenge basis,
following the model of
the Agricultural
Development Scheme 1999
The Government will {1}1.2 UK Farmers in July 2000 No Existing scheme
provide funding of £1.2 England is an approved
million to Lantra State Aid.
(National Training Approval will be
Organisation for the sought for
Landbased Sector) to changes to the
promote the economic scheme
benefits of training and
to analyse the training
needs of 20,000 farm
businesses
The Government will help {1}6.5 UK Farmers in The new service No Need for EC
farmers develop better England is being planned approval to be
business practices to start on 1 confirmed
through tailored September 2000
business advice. As
farmers increasingly
diversify their
businesses, they will be
able to draw on the
wider expertise and
services of the Small
Business Service
The Government will {1}0.5 UK Farmers in Funds for rural No Need for EC
continue to support the England stress support approval to be
Rural Stress Information groups will be confirmed
Network by extending for available in the
at least a further year summer
the secondment of a MAFF
official to that
organisation. MAFF will
also increase the
provision of free advice
to those farmers
referred to it by
certain organisations.
The Government will
increase its support to
voluntary bodies dealing
with rural stress on the
basis of an action plan
it will draw up with
them by June
Launch an electronic {1}0.4 UK The whole The first phase No EC approval not
portal for farming industry will is planned to go needed
stand to benefit live by December
2000
Business restructuring {1}2 UK Details are to Details are to No Will depend on
aid for Scotland, Wales be announced in be announced in measures to be
and Northern Ireland due course by due course by announced
the devolved the devolved
Administrations Administrations
and Northern and Northern
Ireland Ireland
Total 203.5 -- -- -- -- --
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: In addition the Government will pay this year agrimonetary aid to arable farmers (£57 million, to be paid from mid-October
2000), sheep farmers (£10 million, being paid now) and beef farmers (£21 million, to be paid from mid-October 2000) which was
previously announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 22 September 1999. {1} In 2000-01 {2} In 2001-02 {3} 71
per cent. of the EU funding is borne by the UK because of the application of the Fontainebleau abatement {4} Estimate in 2000-01 {5}
Over 2 years: £0.3 million in 2000-01 and £1.961 in 2001-02 {6} Over 4 years
Subjects
Agriculture; Finance; Eligibility; Farm; Government assistance; EU action; Recipients; Subsidies
Date
17 April 2000
Reference
348 c331-6W;348 c330-5W; 117970
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_622548
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what tests are carried out on (a) raw and (b) UHT milk imported into the UK from (i) EU and (ii) non-EU countries.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what tests are carried out on (a) raw and (b) UHT milk imported into the UK from (i) EU and (ii) non-EU countries.
Asked by
Nick Ainger
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 2000
For answer on
5 April 2000
Answered on
5 April 2000
Mr. Ainger: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are carried out on (a) raw and (b) UHT milk imported
into the UK from (i) EU and (ii) non-EU countries. [116561]
Ms Quin: All milk for human consumption produced in the UK and other EU member states is subject to EC legislative production
standards. Milk is therefore traded freely in accordance with single market provisions and is not required to be tested on entry
into the UK. Raw cow's drinking milk cannot be imported from other member states or third countries and sold for human consumption
in the UK.
No testing is required on milk imported from third countries. However, EC rules require that milk imported for human consumption may
come only from EU approved establishments in approved third countries and is accompanied by public health certification signed by an
official inspector stating that it meets EU health standards. EC Regulations require Environmental Health Officers to carry out
hygiene and quality tests on milk at the point of sale or manufacture.
Subjects
Developing countries; EU country; Import; Milk; Testing; Untreated milk; UHT milk
Date
5 April 2000
Reference
347 c500W;347 c500-1W; 116561
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_624737
Whether they will remove the maximum weight limit on payments for cows slaughtered over three years old. [HL 1532].
Whether they will remove the maximum weight limit on payments for cows slaughtered over three years old. [HL 1532].
Asked by
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hayman
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
23 March 2000
Answered on
23 March 2000
Subjects
Compensation; Cattle; Disease control; Payment; Livestock; Measurement; Slaughterhouses
Date
23 March 2000
Reference
HL 1532; 611 c40WA
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_809052
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how much was paid in subsidies to beef farmers in the United Kingdom in 1999. - Inc table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how much was paid in subsidies to beef farmers in the United Kingdom in 1999. - Inc table.
Asked by
Tom Cox
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 March 2000
For answer on
17 March 2000
Answered on
17 March 2000
Mr. Cox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid in subsidies to beef farmers in the United Kingdom
in 1999. [114249]
Ms Quin: Payments by the Exchequer in support of the beef industry for the financial years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 are outlined in the
table. It should be noted that not all subsidies are paid directly to farmers. Figures for 1999-2000 are estimates.
April/March (financial years)
£ million
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1998-99 1999-2000
Suckler Cow Premium Scheme 339.5 219.9
Beef Special Premium Scheme 294.0 220.1
Beef Deseasonalisation Scheme 5.6 3.0
Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances: 70.3 56.5
cattle
Internal market measures 2.0 2.4
Intervention purchases/sales -29.3 -85.8
Intervention storage costs 24.2 9.9
Export refunds -1.9 0.6
Over Thirty Month scheme purchases 263.8 248.4
Over Thirty Month Scheme slaughter, disposal 116.2 127.7
costs etc.
Calf Processing Aid Scheme 51.0 10.0
Selective cull 18.9 2.2
Other measures 5.2 0.5
Total 1,159.5 815.4
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Government assistance; Livestock industry; Subsidies; Beef
Date
17 March 2000
Reference
114249; 346 c360W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_625502
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. - (Holding answer 11 February 2000).
To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. - (Holding answer 11 February 2000).
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
David Lock
(Labour)
Answering body
Lord Chancellor's Department
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 February 2000
For answer on
17 February 2000
Answered on
17 February 2000
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if all food served at his Department's official functions
meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109783]
Mr. Lock: [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The Department has contracted out catering. All food served at official functions by
the caterers fully complies with current Environmental Health Authority legislation. The caterers are also ISO 9002 accredited.
Our caterers confirm under their specification that all pig and cow meat purchased by their supplier is born and bred in either the
UK or Ireland, that the livestock are free range, and not fed meat and bonemeal foodstuffs. Their supplier is audited and verified
regularly to ensure compliance with these specifications.
Subjects
Catering; Government department; Food; Lord Chancellor's Department
Date
17 February 2000
Reference
344 c636W; 109783
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_952117
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what representations he has received on the use of bovine somatotrophin in dairy cows this year; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what representations he has received on the use of bovine somatotrophin in dairy cows this year; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Mike Hancock
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
1 February 2000
For answer on
15 February 2000
Answered on
15 February 2000
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the use of bovine
somatotropin in dairy cows this year; and if he will make a statement. [108579]
Ms Quin: One letter has been received this year. Following advice from the independent Veterinary Products Committee, the Government
voted in favour of a permanent ban in the EU on the marketing and use of recombinant bovine somatotropin. The ban came into effect
on 1 January 2000.
Subjects
Cattle; EU law; Bovine somatotropin
Date
15 February 2000
Reference
108579; 344 c529-30W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_626495
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer of 25th January 2000, 343 c192W, if he will publish a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in (a) Shropshire and (b) the United Kingdom for each year from 1992 to 1997; and if he will make...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer of 25th January 2000, 343 c192W, if he will publish a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in (a) Shropshire and (b) the United Kingdom for each year from 1992 to 1997; and if he will make...
Asked by
Paul Marsden
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
27 January 2000
For answer on
9 February 2000
Answered on
9 February 2000
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000, Official
Report, column 192W, if he will publish a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in (a) Shropshire and (b) the United Kingdom for
each year from 1992 to 1997; and if he will make a statement. [107917]
Ms Quin: The breakdown of subsidy payments in Shropshire in the years 1994 to 1997, and the United Kingdom in the years 1992 to
1997, is set out in the tables as follows.
Table 1: Subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire 1994-1997
£ million
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1994 1995 1996 1997
Arable Area Payments Scheme 18.6 16.7 28.7 23.2
Beef Special Premium 3.6 4.7 5.0 5.7
Suckler Cow Premium 3.1 2.5 4.8 4.0
Sheep Annual Premium 8.2 8.8 9.3 5.1
Hill Livestock Compensatory 1.3 1.3 1.2 2.2
Allowances
Environmentally Sensitive 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.6
Areas
Other agri-environmental 0.7 0.3 0.3 {1}--
schemes
Other subsidies{2} -- 0.2 2.8 1.4
Total 36.3 35.5 53.4 43.2
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Less than 0.1 {2 }Includes CAP, non-CAP and national payments.
Table 2: Subsidy payments to Uk Farmers 1992-1997
£ million
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
Arable Area Payments 0 653 816 1,087 1,116 1,114
Scheme
Other crop subsidies 184 423 240 224 182 109
(incl. set aside)
Beef Special Premium 45 159 193 232 295 271
Suckler Cow Premium 99 144 178 228 286 374
Sheep Annual Premium 437 433 391 481 329 300
Other Livestock 6 11 7 7 626 432
subsidies
Hill Livestock 154 130 111 108 166 109
Compensatory Allowances
Environmentally 13 21 22 33 38 46
Sensitive Areas
Other agri-environmental 10 16 34 46 49 59
schemes
Other subsidies{1} 10 8 8 8 9 9
Total{2} 957 1,998 2,002 2,456 3,095 2,820
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1 }Includes CAP, non-CAP and national payments. {2 }Excludes levies. Notes: 1. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 2.
Agriculture in the United Kingdom.
Subjects
Agriculture; Subsidies; Shropshire
Date
9 February 2000
Reference
344 c202W; 107917
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_740538
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the areas that have applied to become a parish or town council in each of the last three years; and what was the outcome of each application. - Including list.
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the areas that have applied to become a parish or town council in each of the last three years; and what was the outcome of each application. - Including list.
Asked by
David Drew
(Labour; Cooperative Party)
Answered by
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2000
For answer on
7 February 2000
Answered on
7 February 2000
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the areas that have applied
to become a parish or town council in each of the last three years; and what was the outcome of each application. [108396]
Ms Beverley Hughes: The list shows the principal local authorities that have submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for
new parishes, either as a result of a review of parish arrangements in their area, or following receipt of a petition for a new
parish.
Local authorities that have since 1997 submitted recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions for the creation of new parishes within their area, either as a result of review or petition
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Principal Authority Area(s) which applied for parish status Outcome
1997-98
Isle of Wight East Cowes 1 new parish created
New parishes constituted on 1 April 1998 1
1998-99
Colchester Borough Council Myland 1 new parish created
East Hampshire District Council Beech 1 new parish created
East Lindsey District Council Saltfleetby 1 new parish created
East Riding of Yorkshire Council Beverley
Cottingham 2 new parishes created
Forest Heath District Council Beck Row
Kenny Hill
Exning 4 new parishes created
Newmarket
Hartlepool Borough Council Headland 1 new parish created
Leeds City Council Allerton Bywater
Horsforth 2 new parishes created
Lewes District Council Seaford 1 new parish created
Maidstone Borough Council Collier Street 1 new parish created
New Forest District Council Godshill 1 new parish created
Portsmouth City Council Southsea 1 new parish created
Scarborough Borough Council Eastfield 1 new parish created
Tameside Metropolitan Council Mossley 1 new parish created
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Kings Hill 1 new parish created
West Lancashire District Council Hilldale 1 new parish created
New parishes constituted on 1 April 1999
1999-2000
Birmingham City Council New Frankley in Birmingham 1 new parish created
Bradford City Council Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury 1 new parish created
Braintree District Council Great Notley 1 new parish created
Cannock Chase District Council Hednesford 1 new parish created
Cherwell District Council Banbury 1 new parish created
Cotswold District Council Upper Rissington 1 new parish created
County of Herefordshire District Council Belmont Rural
Hereford 2 new parishes created
East Riding of Yorkshire Council Bridlington
Anlaby with Anlaby Common
Kirk Ella
Willerby 4 new parishes created
Elmbridge Borough Council Claygate 1 new parish created
Erewash Borough Council Sawley 1 new parish created
Forest of Dean District Council Cliffords Mesne 1 new parish created
Gorsley and Kilcot 1 proposed parish rejected
Gravesham Borough Council Vigo 1 new parish created
Leeds City Council Morley 1 new parish created
Mid Sussex District Council Ashurst Wood
Hassocks 2 new parishes created
North Somerset District Council Weston-super-Mare 1 new parish created
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Maltby 1 new parish created
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hightown 1 new parish created
South Bedfordshire District Council Chalton 1 new parish created
South Northamptonshire Overthorpe 1 new parish created
Stafford Borough Council Stowe-by-Chartley 1 new parish created
Tandridge District Council Caterham-on-the-Hill
Caterham Valley
Chaldon
Dormansland
Lingfield
Outwood
Warlingham
Whyteleafe
Woldingham 9 new parishes created
Wear Valley District Council Witton-le Wear
Dene Valley 2 new parishes created
Welwyn Hatfield District Council Woolmer Valley 1 new parish created
West Berkshire District Council Holybrook 1 new parish created
West Lindsey District Council Brookenby 1 new parish created
New parishes to be constituted on 1 April 39
2000
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Applications; Local government; Parish and town councils
Date
7 February 2000
Reference
344 c16-8W;344 c16-7W; 108396
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_688518
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at what point ownership of a cow over 30 months old transfers to the Intervention Board under the over-30-months scheme in the case where a livestock market is used as a collection centre and animals are tagged by the Board at...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at what point ownership of a cow over 30 months old transfers to the Intervention Board under the over-30-months scheme in the case where a livestock market is used as a collection centre and animals are tagged by the Board at...
Asked by
James Paice
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 January 2000
For answer on
7 February 2000
Answered on
7 February 2000
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what point ownership of a cow over 30 months old transfers to
the Intervention Board under the over-30-months scheme in the case where a livestock market is used as a collection centre and
animals are tagged by the Board at that centre. [108130]
Ms Quin: For the purpose of the Over-30-months scheme the Intervention Board does not take ownership of the cattle until they are
presented for slaughter, and it is at this point that eligibility for compensation is determined. Producers have the option of
submitting animals into the scheme directly to abattoirs on a deadweight basis, or via auction markets who act as agents for
producers in submitting animals into the scheme on a liveweight basis. At auction markets animals undergo preliminary eligibility
checks, in particular weighing. A further tag is inserted in the animal's ear at this stage for ease of identification purposes
only.
Subjects
Cattle; Disease control; Market; Slaughterhouse; Tagging; BSE; Intervention Board
Date
7 February 2000
Reference
344 c77W; 108130
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_682738
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the registered markets for the collection of over thirty month scheme cattle in East Anglia.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the registered markets for the collection of over thirty month scheme cattle in East Anglia.
Asked by
Lord Pickles
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
26 January 2000
For answer on
4 February 2000
Answered on
4 February 2000
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the registered markets for the collection of
over-30-month scheme cattle in East Anglia. [107753]
Ms Quin: Within East Anglia there are two markets at Norwich and Colchester registered with the Intervention Board for the live
collection of over-30-month scheme cattle. The number of markets, and indeed abattoirs, in the region reflects the traditional
patterns of marketing cull cows from the area and the predominantly arable nature of farming within the region.
Subjects
Cattle; Markets; Unknown
Date
4 February 2000
Reference
343 c753W; 107753
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_661316
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many dairy farms there were in Berkshire in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99. - Inc table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many dairy farms there were in Berkshire in (a) 1996-97, (b) 1997-98 and (c) 1998-99. - Inc table.
Asked by
Baroness May of Maidenhead
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
31 January 2000
For answer on
4 February 2000
Answered on
4 February 2000
Mrs. May: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farms there were in Berkshire in (a) 1996-97, (b)
1997-98 and (c) 1998-99. [108421]
Ms Quin: The data are not available in the precise form requested but, from the June Agricultural Census, the number of holdings in
Berkshire with one or more dairy cows was as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Year Number
1996 85
1997 78
1998 80
1999 73
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Dairy farming; Farms; Berkshire
Date
4 February 2000
Reference
108421; 343 c755W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_716351
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many farmers receive total annual subsidies of more than (a) £1,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £20,000 and (e) £25,000. - Inc table and fact that figures for the number of farmers receiving annual subsidies are unavailable. (Holding answer 21...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many farmers receive total annual subsidies of more than (a) £1,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £20,000 and (e) £25,000. - Inc table and fact that figures for the number of farmers receiving annual subsidies are unavailable. (Holding answer 21...
Asked by
Paul Flynn
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 December 1999
For answer on
3 February 2000
Answered on
3 February 2000
Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers receive total annual subsidies of more than (a)
£1,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £20,000 and (e) £25,000. [103664]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Figures for the number of farmers receiving annual subsidies are unavailable. However
figures held by MAFF for the number of UK agricultural holdings which received payments under the Schemes covered by the Integrated
Administration and Control System (IACS){1} in the 1997-98 EAGGF year are as follows:
Figures for the EAGGF {2} year 16 October 1997 to 15 October 1998--number of holdings receiving subsidies under IACS schemes
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Financial bonds England Scotland Wales Northern Ireland
£1,000+{3} {4}-- {4}-- {4}-- {4}--
£5,000+ 158,285 23,794 19,457 28,634
£10,000+ 36,530 8,891 2,846 4,697
£20,000+ 19,817 5,356 777 1,358
£30,000+{3} 12,689 3,299 262 488
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} The Arable Area Payments, Beef Special Premium, Suckler Cow Premium and Sheep Annual Premium Schemes and Hill Livestock
Compensatory Allowances. {2} Payments are for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund year 16 October 1997-15 October
1998. {3} The figures for the number of agricultural holdings receiving annual subsidies of over £1,000 and £25,000 are not
available without incurring disproportionate costs to provide the information requested. {4} Unavailable.
Subjects
Agriculture; Subsidies
Date
3 February 2000
Reference
103664; 343 c722W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_909312
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement setting out the (a) policy and (b) economic reasons for paying a slaughter premium for cull cows. - (Holding answer 19 January 2000).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement setting out the (a) policy and (b) economic reasons for paying a slaughter premium for cull cows. - (Holding answer 19 January 2000).
Asked by
Michael Jack
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 January 2000
For answer on
25 January 2000
Answered on
25 January 2000
Mr. Jack: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement setting out the (a) policy and (b)
economic reasons for paying a slaughter premium for cull cows. [105298]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 19 January 2000]: The EU Slaughter Premiums for adult cattle and calves are paid in partial compensation
for the cuts in support prices which will be made on 1 July in each of the years 2000 to 2002. Those price cuts will affect the
price of most animals sold on the EU market, including cull animals. While the price paid for animals slaughtered under the Over
Thirty Months Scheme in the UK is set by Commission Regulation rather than by market forces, the Agriculture Council decided not to
exclude such animals from Slaughter Premium, because to do so would be to discriminate against UK producers.
Subjects
Agriculture; Cattle; Reform; Waste disposal; Slaughterhouse; Subsidy; Beef; Beef premiums
Date
25 January 2000
Reference
343 c181-2W;343 c182W; 105298
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_633097
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will provide a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire in the last year for which data is available; and if he will make a statement. - Inc table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will provide a breakdown of subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire in the last year for which data is available; and if he will make a statement. - Inc table.
Asked by
Paul Marsden
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 January 2000
For answer on
25 January 2000
Answered on
25 January 2000
Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of subsidy payments to
farmers in Shropshire in the last year for which data are available; and if he will make a statement. [105528]
Ms Quin: Subsidy payments to farmers in Shropshire for 1998 were as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
£
CAP Schemes
Beef Special Premium 5,756,340
Environmentally Sensitive Area 1,506,008
Arable Area 22,562,468
Suckler Cow Premium 4,712,063
Sheep Annual Premium 6,842,521
Other Payments{1} 784,446
Guidance Schemes
Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance 1,416,414
Farm and Conservation Grants (1989 Scheme) 5,488
Farm and Conservation Grants (1991 Scheme) 1,997
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} A small proportion of this total relates to non CAP schemes funded by the EU.
In some cases amounts include an element of national as well as EU funding.
Subjects
Agriculture; Subsidies; Shropshire
Date
25 January 2000
Reference
343 c192W;343 c193-4W; 105528
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_809728
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer of 10th January, Official Report, column 99W, if he will list by value the CAP payments including agri-environment schemes, broken down by individual category which were paid to farmers in Worcestershire in the calendar year 1998. -...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his Answer of 10th January, Official Report, column 99W, if he will list by value the CAP payments including agri-environment schemes, broken down by individual category which were paid to farmers in Worcestershire in the calendar year 1998. -...
Asked by
Michael John Foster
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 January 2000
For answer on
25 January 2000
Answered on
25 January 2000
Mr. Michael J. Foster: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2000, Official
Report, column 99W, if he will list by value the CAP payments including agri-environment schemes, broken down by individual category
which were paid to farmers in Worcestershire in the calendar year 1998. [105589]
Ms Quin: Provisional figures for CAP payments made to farmers in Hereford and Worcester in 1998 were as follows.
£
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Schemes Payments
Arable area payments 25,553,526
Environmentally sensitive area{1} 29,839
Sheep annual premium 8,288,360
Suckler cow premium 6,452,000
Farm woodland premium{1} 216,811
Farm woodland{1} 250,990
Organic aid{1} 34,559
Nitrate sensitive area{1} 31,657
Countryside stewardship{1} 497,908
Habitat{1} 6,838
Beef special premium 6,757,687
Total 48,120,175
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} These amounts include national as well as EU funding Note: Data is not available separately for Worcester because our
administration operates on the combined county of Hereford and Worcester. We estimate that Worcester totals are broadly 40 per cent.
of the combined total.
Subjects
Payments; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Worcestershire
Date
25 January 2000
Reference
105589; 343 c187-8W;343 c188-9W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_884150
The purpose of this Lords Library Note is to chart developments and practice in relation to divisions on delegated legislation in the House of Lords over the last fifty years.
The purpose of this Lords Library Note is to chart developments and practice in relation to divisions on delegated legislation in the House of Lords over the last fifty years.
By
Isolde Victory
Type
Lords Library Briefings - House of Lords
Subjects
Delegated legislation; House of Lord; Divisions; Two-chamber legislatures
Topics
Legislative process; House of Lords; Parliamentary procedure
Date
25 January 2000
Reference
LLN-2000-001
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/344285
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when the new beef slaughter premium scheme will be implemented; and from what date payments will be available.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when the new beef slaughter premium scheme will be implemented; and from what date payments will be available.
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 December 1999
For answer on
12 January 2000
Answered on
12 January 2000
Mr. Breed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the new beef slaughter premium scheme will be implemented;
and from what date payments will be available. [103903]
Ms Quin: The new slaughter premium will be payable on cattle slaughtered on or after 1 January 2000. A 60 per cent. advance of the
payments due, in respect of animals slaughtered in the year 2000, will be made as soon as possible after 16 October 2000, with the
balance paid as soon as possible after 1 April 2001. This is identical to the payment timetable for the existing Beef Special
Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Schemes.
Subjects
Agriculture; Reform; Slaughterhouse; Subsidy; Beef; Beef premiums; Slaughter premium scheme
Date
12 January 2000
Reference
342 c203W; 103903
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_946273
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers for (a) the 1998 calendar year and (b) the 1989-99 financial year; and if he will list by value to Wiltshire farmers CAP schemes supporting market prices but which do...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers for (a) the 1998 calendar year and (b) the 1989-99 financial year; and if he will list by value to Wiltshire farmers CAP schemes supporting market prices but which do...
Asked by
Robert Key
(Conservative)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 December 1999
For answer on
11 January 2000
Answered on
11 January 2000
Mr. Key: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers
for (a) the 1998 calendar year and (b) the 1989-99 financial year; and if he will list by value to Wiltshire farmers CAP schemes
supporting market prices but which do not involve payments made directly to them. [102899]
Mr. Morley: [holding answer 20 December 1999]: The total value of approved payments to Wiltshire farmers for the 1998 calendar year
and the 1998-99 financial year is as follows:
£000
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
1998 Calendar 1998-99 Financial
Arable Area Payments Scheme 32,116 32,700
Environmentally Sensitive Area 309 376
Sheep Annual Premium Scheme 1,400 1,348
Suckler Cow Premium Scheme 2,254 2,288
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 180 181
Farm Woodland Scheme 75 75
Organic Aid Scheme 116 140
Nitrate Sensitive Area 42 42
Countryside Stewardship Scheme 612 576
Habitat 156 156
Countryside Access Scheme 2 2
Beef Special Premium Scheme 3,572 3,661
40,834 41,545
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
CAP schemes supporting market prices which benefit UK farmers but do not involve payments made directly to them are as follows. It
is not possible to record the impact of these support measures on a county basis.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Price
(1) The rates for the purchase of intervention commodities for the 1999 marketing year are:
Beef euro 3,475 per tonne (this is the intervention price but the
maximum buying in price is determined by reference to market
prices and tenders submitted)
Cereals euro 119.5 per tonne (rising by monthly increments between
November and May to a maximum of euro 126.9 per tonne)
Dairy:
Butter euro 2,953.8 per tonne (maximum buying in price--amount paid
dependent on tender)
Skimmed Milk Powder euro 2,055.2 per tonne
(2) The rates for Private Storage Aid are:
Pigmeat euro 463 per tonne (maximum)
Sheepmeat euro 1,400 per tonne
(3) In addition farmers also benefit indirectly from the following trader-based schemes designed to support the agriculture market
Liquid Skimmed Milk for Stockfeed euro 58 per tonne
Skimmed Milk Powder for Animal Feed euro 715.1 per tonne
School Milk Subsidy:
(wholemilk) euro 29.44 per 100kg
(Skimmed Milk) euro 18.58 per 100 kg
Casein Production Subsidy euro 6.42 per 100kg of Skimmed Milk
NPO Butter euro 105 per 100kg
Butter for Manufacture rate of aid varies depending on fat content of butter
Aid rate for 80% fat butter between euro 880-920 per tonne
82% fat butter euro 910-950 per tonne
Cream euro 380-400 per tonne
Flax euro 815.86 per HA
Hemp euro 662.88 per HA
Dehydrated Fodder euro 68.83 per tonne
Fruit and Vegetable Withdrawals:
Cauliflowers euro 8.38 per 100kg
Apples euro 9.94 per 100kg
Pears euro 9.46 per 100kg
Fruit and Vegetable Operational Programme
Assistance is payable at 50 per cent. of actual approved expenditure, subject to an annual ceiling set between 2.5-4.5 per cent. of
the producer organisation's marketed production
Starch euro 52.66 per tonne
Grape Must:
British Wine euro 0.2379 per kg
Home Wine Kits euro 0.3103 per kg
Hops euro 480/hectare
Seeds
Cereals Range euro 14.37-17.27 per Quintal
Oilseeds Range euro 20.53-28.38 per Quintal
Grasses Range euro 19.20-83.56 per Quintal
Leguminous Plants Range euro 75.11 per Quintal
Sugar in Chemical
Industry euro 459.16 per tonne
Sugar Storage Costs euro 3.30 per tonne
Cane Refining Scheme euro 29.20 per tonne
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: All rates are paid in £ sterling using the Euro Conversion Rate (ECR) in force on the operative date
Subjects
Farmers; EU grants and loan; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Wiltshire
Date
11 January 2000
Reference
102899; 342 c155-8W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_931596
The research reported here attempts to understand as clearly as possible the part played by the mass media in the Great GM Food Debate. It does not adjudicate on the “rights” and “wrongs” of the issues raised in the debate but rather, seeks to characterise and (so far as is practicably possible) to explain the principal features of the debate itself. Following a brief consideration of materials and methods, it examines some general
considerations concerning the inter-relationships between science and the media, particularly in the context of public policy-making; describes the principal features of the Great GM Food Debate; and continues by analysing these features quantitatively and qualitatively. Finally, it offers an interpretation of the debate in terms of the wider scientific, economic, social and political context in which it took place. In a separate conclusion, we offer some (necessarily tentative) thoughts concerning the practical lessons that may be learned from the Great GM Food Debate by those who are interested in improving the relationship between science and society in Europe today.
The research reported here attempts to understand as clearly as possible the part played by the mass media in the Great GM Food Debate. It does not adjudicate on the “rights” and “wrongs” of the issues raised in the debate but rather, seeks to characterise and (so far as is...
By
Type
POSTbrief
Subjects
Genetically modified organisms; Food; Newspaper press; Media; Research
Topics
Broadcasting; Medium; Press; Genetics
Date
1 January 2000
Reference
POST-Report-11
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/344816
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the CAP support regimes which will be subject to the modulation levy under the rural development regulation, together with the cash yield of a 1 per cent. levy for each regime, in respect of (a) England, (b)...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the CAP support regimes which will be subject to the modulation levy under the rural development regulation, together with the cash yield of a 1 per cent. levy for each regime, in respect of (a) England, (b)...
Asked by
David Curry
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 December 1999
For answer on
21 December 1999
Answered on
21 December 1999
Mr. Curry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the CAP support regimes which will be subject to
the modulation levy under the rural development regulation, together with the cash yield of a 1 per cent. levy for each regime, in
respect of (a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [102465]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 15 December 1999]: The Government announced their intention on 7 December to introduce modulation of farm
payments as from 2001 and to use the funds released, with Government match funding, towards the seven-year Rural Development
programme. A list of the farm payments affected is given in the table.
Levels of modulation receipts will vary each year. Indicative receipts from 1 per cent. modulation for the years 2001 to 2006 in
England would be:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
£ million
2001 14
2002 15
2003 15
2004 15
2005 15
2006 16
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
These receipts would refer to the calendar year in which the modulation was applied. Due to operational considerations, some
receipts from modulation in one calendar year would not be available for spending until the following financial year.
The National Assembly for Wales has recently announced its intention to apply modulation. The Scottish Executive and the Northern
Ireland Assembly will be making announcements on funding the Rural Development Regulation shortly.
List of CAP scheme payments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Sector Legal base Notes
Arable crops Articles 2 and 5, Regulation (EC) No Area payments including set-aside payments
1251/1999 and including durum wheat and special aid
Potato starch Article 8(2), Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 Payment
Grain legumes Article 1, Regulation (EC) No 1577/96 Area aid
Flax Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 Area aid (the portion paid to farmers)
Hemp Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 Area aid
Silkworms Article 2, Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 Aid to encourage rearing
Tobacco Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 Production aid
Seeds Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 Production aid
Hops Article 12, Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 Area aid
Regulation (EC) No 1098/98 Payments for temporary resting only
Beef and veal Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10, 11, 13, Special premium, deseasonalisation
Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 premium, suckler cow premium (including
when paid for heifers and including the
additional national suckler cow premium
when co-financed), slaughter premium
extensification payment, additional
payments
Milk and dairy products Articles 16 and 17, Regulation (EC) No Dairy premium and additional payments
1256/1999
Sheep and goats Article 5, Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 Ewe and she-goat premium and LFA
supplements
Agri-money Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No Payments to producers (including those
2799/98: Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation under the transitional Regulation)
(EC) No 2800/98
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Payments; Reform; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Rural development plans
Date
21 December 1999
Reference
341 c570-2W; 102465
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_572254
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will support the European Commission's proposal to ban bovine somatropin from January 2000. - Includes ref to copy of the VPCs report in Library. (Holding answer 9 December 1999).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will support the European Commission's proposal to ban bovine somatropin from January 2000. - Includes ref to copy of the VPCs report in Library. (Holding answer 9 December 1999).
Asked by
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 December 1999
For answer on
21 December 1999
Answered on
21 December 1999
Mr. David Heath: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will support the European Commission's proposal to ban
bovine somatropin from January 2000. [101748]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 9 December 1999]: We have received clear advice from the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) that the
treatment of dairy cows with recombinant bovine somatropin (rBST) is associated with severe welfare problems. We announced on 11
October that we had accepted the VPC's advice to support a continuation of the moratorium or equivalent measures which prohibit the
use of rBST. Accordingly, we support the ban proposed by the European Commission. A copy of the VPC's report is in the Library of
the House.
Subjects
Cattle; EU action; Bovine somatotropin
Date
21 December 1999
Reference
341 c568W; 101748
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_572249
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the CAP that will be transferred to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001; if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the CAP that will be transferred to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001; if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under...
Asked by
Tim Yeo
(Conservative)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
9 December 1999
For answer on
20 December 1999
Answered on
20 December 1999
Mr. Yeo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the
CAP that will be transferred to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001; [102786]
(2) if he will publish the amount of the direct payments under the CAP that will be transferred from each sector that currently
receives direct payments to other payments through modulation in each of the seven years from 2001. [102787]
Mr. Nick Brown: [holding answer 13 December 1999]:
The Government announced their intention on 7 December to introduce modulation of farm payments as from 2001 and to use the funds
released, with Government match funding, towards the seven-year Rural Development programme. A list of the farm payments affected is
given in the following table.
Levels of modulation receipts will vary each year; proposed expenditure from these receipts under the Rural Development Plan
(subject to European Commission approval, Parliamentary procedures and the Spending Review) is as follows, with deficits in some
years being funded by carry over surplus receipts in others:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
£ million
2001-02 22
2002-03 45
2003-04 50
2004-05 54
2005-06 62
2006-07 70
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
CAP scheme payments
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Sector Legal base Notes
Arable crops Articles 2 and 5, Regulation (EC) No Area payments including set-aside payments
1251/1999 and including durum wheat and special aid
Potato starch Article 8(2), Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 Payment
Grain legumes Article 1, Regulation (EC) No 1577/96 Area aid
Flax Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 Area aid (the portion paid to farmers)
Hemp Article 4, Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 Area aid
Silkworms Article 2, Regulation (EEC) No 845/72 Aid to encourage rearing
Tobacco Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 Production aid
Seeds Article 3, Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 Production aid
Hops Article 12, Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 Area aid
Regulation (EC) No 1098/98 Payments for temporary resting only
Beef and veal Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10, 11, 13, Special premium, deseasonalisation
Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 premium, suckler cow premium (including
when paid for heifers and including the
additional national suckler cow premium
when co-financed), slaughter premium,
extensification payment, additional
payments
Milk and dairy products Articles 16 and 17, Regulation (EC) No Dairy premium and additional payment
1256/1999
Sheep and goats Article 5, Regulation (EC) No 2467/98 Ewe and she-goat premium and LFA
supplements
Agri-money Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No Payments to producers (including those
2799/98; Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation under the transitional Regulation)
(EC) No 2800/98
Poseidon Articles 5, 13(1), 17, Regulation (EEC) No Sectors: beef and veal, development of
3763/91 fruit, plants and flowers, sugar
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Expenditure; Payment; Subsidy; Common agricultural policy; Suckler cow premium; Beef premium; Arable area payments scheme; Sheep premiums
Date
20 December 1999
Reference
341 c441-4W; 102786;102787
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_572564
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will estimate the total value to Leicestershire farmers of all CAP payments for (a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) 2000-01.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will estimate the total value to Leicestershire farmers of all CAP payments for (a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) 2000-01.
Asked by
Andy Reed
(Labour; Cooperative Party)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
29 November 1999
For answer on
8 December 1999
Answered on
8 December 1999
Mr. Reed: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value to Leicestershire farmers of
all CAP payments for (a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) 2000-01. [101061]
Ms Quin: The following schedule shows approved payments to Leicestershire farmers for both the 1998 calendar year and the 1998-99
financial year. Farmers in Leicestershire will also have benefited from CAP schemes supporting market prices which do not involve
payments made directly to them. Regarding estimates for 2000-01, with so many variables it is not possible to provide estimates with
any degree of accuracy at this time.
CAP Payments in Leicestershire
£
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Scheme Calendar Year 1998 Financial Year 1998-99
Sheep Annual Premium Scheme 2,489,961 2,406,632
Suckler Cow Premium Scheme 2,454,053 2,210,637
Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance -- --
Beef Special Premium Scheme 4,352,833 4,331,827
Arable Areas Payments Scheme 28,210,375 28,013,534
Environmentally Sensitive Area -- --
Organic Aid Scheme 11,350 14,158
Farm Woodland Scheme 34,407 34,407
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 110,469 117,145
Nitrate Sensitive Areas -- --
Countryside Stewardship Scheme 364,188 402,471
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Note: The figures are based on the addresses to which payments have been made which in the majority of cases will be the address
where the relevant farming activities have taken place. However, when a single farm business operates on land in various locations,
the payment is made to their main holding rather than, in all cases, the holding where the cropping or livestock maintenance may
necessarily have taken place. This means that an element of the payments shown will relate to farming activities in other parts of
the UK but the payments will have been made to the main holding address in Leicestershire. Conversely, the figures attached will not
include payments for farming activities in Leicestershire in cases where the main holding is located in another part of the UK.
All schemes have individual `scheme years' and these, invariably, respect neither calendar nor financial year boundaries. The
figures quoted give totals of all payments made under the schemes, which will cover a mixture of scheme years. For example, in the
case of BSPS, they will be made up from the balance payments for the 1997 scheme year, paid in April 1998 and the Advance payments
for the 1998 scheme year, paid in November 1998.
Subjects
Farmers; Subsidy; Leicestershire; Common agricultural policy
Date
8 December 1999
Reference
340 c555-6W; 101061
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_573827
Statement on the implementation of Agenda 2000: A New Direction for Agriculture. - Inc figures.
Statement on the implementation of Agenda 2000: A New Direction for Agriculture. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Ben Chapman
(Labour)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
6 December 1999
For answer on
7 December 1999
Answered on
7 December 1999
Mr. Ben Chapman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of "Agenda
2000: A New Direction for Agriculture". [102025]
Mr. Nick Brown: I announced today a package of measures which will radically redirect support for agriculture in fulfilment of
pledges made in our manifesto and subsequently. My announcement focused on one particular aspect--the Rural Development Regulation.
Our decision in implementing options under all of the sectors of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy will have
an important impact upon the future direction of the agricultural industry. Beef Regime
Under the beef regime, we have decided to use the National Envelope to top up payments to suckler cow producers in the year 2000;
the position for future years will be reviewed, in particular to consider the possibility of introducing area-based payments on
permanent pasture used for low-density beef production in England.
We will retain the 90-head limit on beef special premium claims and introduce a UK-wide national ceiling against which the need for
scale-back will be assessed; both these decisions will be reviewed in the course of the year 2000.
We have also decided to implement the cut in Suckler Cow Premium quota by reducing producers' holdings of quota on a flat-rate basis
(probably at around 4 per cent.); producers who have reduced production below their quota level as a result of participation in an
EU-funded extensification scheme or who can show that the imposition of the cut would materially jeopardise the success of a
development plan in progress on 1 January 2000 may apply for exemption from this quote-cut.
We will increase from the year 2000 onwards the milk quota limit for dairy producers claiming Suckler Cow Premium, from 120,000
kilograms to 180,000 kilograms.
We will apply less restrictive two-tier model for extensification payments additional to payments under the Beef Special Premium and
Suckler Cow Premium Schemes; and assess eligibility for extensification payments on cattle numbers on producers' holdings on six
dates each year, notified to producers retrospectively; this method of assessment will be reviewed as and when our cattle database
becomes fully operational, when it includes movement details for older animals.
Dairy regime
In relation to the dairy regime, we will be extending the quota leasing deadline from 31 December to 31 March with effect from the
next quota year. At the same time, the deadline for processing permanent transfers of quota via a lease of land--though not for
other transfers--is being advanced to 1 March in order to ensure that the Intervention Board meets its deadline on the levy
calculation. There was no widespread support for the other discretionary provisions set out in the consultation papers and these
changes will not be implemented.
Cross compliance
CAP reforms agreed in Berlin also gave powers for member states to attach specific environmental conditions to agricultural support
payments, if they consider this to be appropriate. Our consultation exercise sought views on whether to introduce such conditions.
Some relevant considerations in deciding whether to do so are: comprehensibility to farmers; ease of enforcement; environmental
benefit; and extent of additional costs or regulatory burden for the generality of farmers.
We are still considering the responses to the England consultation on this issue. However, if following this consideration we
identified possible cross-compliance measures, we would hold a further consultation exercise on any specific proposals before
introducing them. Meanwhile, we will be retaining our existing cross- compliance measures which the UK has applied for some years,
namely the current overgrazing condition in our livestock subsidy regimes and the management conditions for set-aside land.
Subjects
Agriculture; Dairy farming; Livestock; Subsidy; Beef; Set-aside scheme; Quota; Agenda 2000; Suckler cow premiums; Beef premiums
Date
7 December 1999
Reference
340 c528-30W;340 c528-9W; 102025
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_573600
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the published references to the scientific, medical and agricultural research which indicate that new variant CJD in humans is caused by eating meat derived from BSE-1 infected cows. - (Holding answer 26 November 1999).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will list the published references to the scientific, medical and agricultural research which indicate that new variant CJD in humans is caused by eating meat derived from BSE-1 infected cows. - (Holding answer 26 November 1999).
Asked by
Lord Mawhinney
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 November 1999
For answer on
30 November 1999
Answered on
30 November 1999
Sir Brian Mawhinney: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the published references to the
scientific, medical and agricultural research which indicate that new variant CJD in humans is caused by eating meat derived from
BSE-infected cows. [99925]
Ms Quin: [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The association between BSE and variant CJD (vCJD) has been discussed in a number of
published articles. Details of those of particular significance are as follows:
1. Will R. G., Ironside-Zeidler M., Cousens S. N., Estibeiro K., Alperovitch A., Poser S., Pocchiari M., Hofman A., Smith P. G. "A
new variant of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in the UK". Lancet 1996, 347/9006, P921-925.
2. Bruce M. E., Will R. G., Ironside J. W., McConnell I. D., Suttie A., McCardle L., Chree A., Hope J., Birkett C., Cousens S.,
Fraser H., Bostock C. J. "Transmissions to mice indicate that `new variant' CJD is caused by the BSE agent". Nature 1997, 389
(6650), P498-501.
3. Collinge J., Sidle K. C. L., Meads J., Ironside J., Hill A. F. "Molecular analysis of prion strain variation and the etiology of
new variant CJD". Nature, 1996, 383, P685-690.
4. Lasmezas C. I., Deslys J. P., Demaimay R., Adjou K., Lamoury F., Robain O., Ironside J., Hauw J. J., Court L., Dormont D.
"Experimental transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to macaques". Travaux Scientifiques Des Chercheurs Du Service De
Sante Des Armees 0 (18), 1997, P123-124.
5. Will R. "New variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease". Biomedicine-Pharmacotherapy, 1999, 53, NI, Feb, P9-13.
The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), the independent expert group that advises the Government on all aspects of
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, regularly reviews relevant published articles. The committee has concluded that the
results of experiments reported in these articles provide convincing evidence that the agent which causes vCJD is the same as that
which causes BSE.
Subjects
Research; BSE; CJD
Date
30 November 1999
Reference
99925; 340 c180W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_575042
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what the cost per claim was in 1998-99 in each of his Department's regional service centres for each of the Common Agricultural Policy schemes administered by them. - Includes table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what the cost per claim was in 1998-99 in each of his Department's regional service centres for each of the Common Agricultural Policy schemes administered by them. - Includes table.
Asked by
Mark Todd
(Labour)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 November 1999
For answer on
10 November 1999
Answered on
10 November 1999
Mr. Todd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost per claim was in 1998-99 in each of his Department's
regional service centres for each of the Common Agricultural Policy schemes administered by them. [97707]
Ms Quin: The direct cost per claim (in £) of staff administration for 1998-99 at each of the Ministry's Regional Service Centres
(RSCs) for each of the major CAP schemes administered by them was as follows.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Regional Service Centre {1}AAPS {2}BSPS {3}SCPS {4}SAPS {5}HLCA {6}CSS {7}ESA
Bristol 83 29 92 60 31 599 154
Cambridge 109 36 101 91 -- 718 121
Carlisle 27 33 76 47 26 512 110
Crewe 31 41 112 82 51 296 134
Exeter 31 34 82 66 40 568 109
Northallerton 80 37 86 64 30 408 127
Nottingham 98 41 73 65 34 501 361
Reading 60 39 89 59 -- 805 143
Worcester 59 32 92 61 28 610 148
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} AAPS--Arable Area Payments Scheme {2} BSPS--Beef Special Premium Scheme {3} SCPS--Suckler Cow Premium Scheme {4} SAPS--Sheep
Annual Premium Scheme {5} HLCA--Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances {6} CSS--Countryside Stewardship Scheme {7}
ESA--Environmentally Sensitive Areas Note: Cambridge and Reading offices do not process HLCA claims.
The amount of work involved in processing a claim or agreement varies according to its value and complexity. The claims processed by
each Regional Service Centre will reflect the type of farming activity in its area. Where the farm businesses in a region are bigger
than the average for the country as a whole, the number of hectares or animals in a claim for a particular scheme will be higher
than the average. This will in turn entail longer field inspections and computer checks on more parcels of land.The figures should
not therefore be used as a direct comparison of the efficiency of the nine RSCs. MAFF is currently developing efficiency measures
for CAP administration by its Regional Organisation for the financial year 2000-01.
Subjects
Costs; EU grants and loan; Staff; Common agricultural policy; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; MAFF regional service centres
Date
10 November 1999
Reference
97707; 337 c664W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_577151
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will permit Milk Marque to continue to sell surplus produce to (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Netherlands.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will permit Milk Marque to continue to sell surplus produce to (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Netherlands.
Asked by
Mike Hancock
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Quin
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 October 1999
For answer on
2 November 1999
Answered on
2 November 1999
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will permit Milk Marque to continue to sell surplus
produce to (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Netherlands. [95788]
Ms Quin: Following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk,
this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the competition authorities. I have no locus in this matter.
Trade within the EU is allowed subject to compliance with competition and other rules.
Subjects
Northern Ireland; Retail trade; Milk Marque; Netherland; Untreated milk; Surpluses
Date
2 November 1999
Reference
95788; 337 c160W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_578553
What information they have on the use in continental Europe of the genetically engineered hormone rBST in cows; and whether milk from injected cows has been imported into the United Kingdom. [HL 4054]. - Inc figures.
What information they have on the use in continental Europe of the genetically engineered hormone rBST in cows; and whether milk from injected cows has been imported into the United Kingdom. [HL 4054]. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hayman
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 October 1999
Answered on
11 October 1999
Subjects
Cattle; Hormone treatment; Import; Milk; Bovine somatotropin; UK trade with EU
Date
11 October 1999
Reference
605 c48WA; HL 4054
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_614308
In relation to the genetically engineered hormone rBST, which stimulates IGF-1, a blood hormone which causes cells to divide, what research has been carried out into the side-effects of rBST in cows, such as increased mastitis and higher antibiotic residues in milk; whether research has been, or will be, commissioned...
In relation to the genetically engineered hormone rBST, which stimulates IGF-1, a blood hormone which causes cells to divide, what research has been carried out into the side-effects of rBST in cows, such as increased mastitis and higher antibiotic residues in milk; whether research has been, or will be, commissioned...
Asked by
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hayman
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 October 1999
Answered on
11 October 1999
Subjects
Cattle; Health hazard; Hormone treatment; Milk; Side effect; Bovine somatotropin; Residues
Date
11 October 1999
Reference
605 c47-8WA; HL 4006
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_597879
In relation to the genetically engineered hormone rBST, which stimulated IGF-1, a blood hormone which causes cells to divide, how many cows in the United Kingdom have so far been injected with such a modified hormone; whether the milk of such cows has been sold without special labelling or health...
In relation to the genetically engineered hormone rBST, which stimulated IGF-1, a blood hormone which causes cells to divide, how many cows in the United Kingdom have so far been injected with such a modified hormone; whether the milk of such cows has been sold without special labelling or health...
Asked by
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Baroness Hayman
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
11 October 1999
Answered on
11 October 1999
Subjects
Cattle; Animal product; Labelling; Hormone treatment; Milk; Bovine somatotropin
Date
11 October 1999
Reference
605 c47WA; HL 4004
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_592461
British farming and reform of the common agriculture policy. House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/77.
British farming and reform of the common agriculture policy. House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/77.
By
Christopher Barclay
Type
Commons Briefing paper
Subjects
Agriculture; Cereal; Dairy farming; Farm; Income; Livestock; Reform; Common agricultural policy; Hill farming
Date
13 August 1999
Reference
RP99-77
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/337447
Why the United Kingdom is alone among European Union members excluded from the United States trade sanctions in the hormone-treated beef and cows dispute. [HL 3869].
Why the United Kingdom is alone among European Union members excluded from the United States trade sanctions in the hormone-treated beef and cows dispute. [HL 3869].
Asked by
Lord Kennet
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Donoughue
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
29 July 1999
Answered on
29 July 1999
Subjects
European Union; Hormone treatment; Overseas trade; USA; Sanctions; Beef
Date
29 July 1999
Reference
604 c221WA; HL 3869
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_711143
Why the possibility that hormone-treated beef and milk from hormone-treated cows contributes to human obesity and to human milk production disorders has not been studied by the Department of Health. [HL 3870].
Why the possibility that hormone-treated beef and milk from hormone-treated cows contributes to human obesity and to human milk production disorders has not been studied by the Department of Health. [HL 3870].
Asked by
Lord Kennet
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Donoughue
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
29 July 1999
Answered on
29 July 1999
Subjects
Health hazards; Hormone; Hormone treatment; Milk; Obesity; Beef
Date
29 July 1999
Reference
HL 3870; 604 c222WA
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_726160
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in the paper, Commitment to Service. - Inc table.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in the paper, Commitment to Service. - Inc table.
Asked by
Bob Blizzard
(Labour)
Answered by
Nicholas Brown
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
26 July 1999
For answer on
27 July 1999
Answered on
27 July 1999
Mr. Blizzard: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting the service
delivery targets set out in the paper, "Commitment to Service". [93892]
Mr. Nick Brown: The table sets out the performance achieved by the Regional Service Centres during 1998-99 against the targets
published in the Charter document "Commitment to Service", second edition.
RSC performance data (%) for Financial Year 1998-99 {1}
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Scheme Total
Arable Area Payments Scheme Main payments 99
Oilseeds Advanced payments 99
Final payments 99
Beef Special Premium Scheme Advance payments (1998) 99
Balance payments (1997) 99
CID applications issued (1998) 99
Premium paid CIDs issued (1998) 99
Suckler Cow Premium Scheme Balance payments 1997 99
Advance payments 1998 98
Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Claims 1998 99
Sheep Annual Premium Scheme Claims marketing year 1998 99
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Applications 84
Claims 96
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Conservation Applications 73
Plan
Claims 84
Farm Woodland Premium Scheme Applications 84
Claims (1998) 98
Injurious Weeds Complaints 99
New Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme Applications (1998) 92
Claims 99
Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Licence applications 98
Strychnine Permits Applications 99
Agricultural Wage Inspections Complaints 95
Wildlife and Countryside Act Licence applications 98
Correspondence Answered within 10 working days 97
Complaints Numbers receiving response within 10 87
working days
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Unless otherwise specified Notes: 1. The relatively high failure rate for the FWPS Applications was due to the diversion of
staff resources in two of the RSCs to higher priority work. 2. The relatively poor performance for the ESA Schemes was primarily
caused by uneven workloads, staff turnover and the introduction of a new computer system. 3. The 87 per cent. response rate to
complaints to the RSCs is explained by the fact that often cases require referral to HQ or the National Scheme Management Centres
and thus take some time to resolve. It must be stressed however that in all cases where the 10 day target was not met a holding
letter was issued to the complainant. General Notes: (i) The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of
applications or claims cleared within the target time, against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to
reasons beyond our control (incorrect information supplied by applicant, etc.) are not included as failures to meet target. (ii) The
Farm Conservation Grant Schemes 1989 and 1991 Applications and Claims and Pilot NSA Claims have been omitted from the table since
these schemes are now closed. (iii) During the year 16 formal complaints were made to MAFF's central Complaints Adjudicator, of
which two were referred elsewhere and three are still outstanding. Of the cases dealt with, six were determined in the complainants
favour and five were not upheld.
Subjects
Standards; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Commitment to service
Date
27 July 1999
Reference
336 c370W; 93892
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_580999
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many dairy firms went out of business in the last year; and what assessment he has made of the causes of those firms ceasing to trade. - Includes figures.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many dairy firms went out of business in the last year; and what assessment he has made of the causes of those firms ceasing to trade. - Includes figures.
Asked by
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 July 1999
For answer on
27 July 1999
Answered on
27 July 1999
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy firms went out of business in the last year;
and what assessment he has made of the causes of those firms ceasing to trade. [92624]
Mr. Rooker: Information in the form requested is not available. The information available relates to the number of main holdings in
the United Kingdom with dairy cows at the June agriculture census, which were estimated to be 36,300 at June 1997 and 35,300 at June
1998. Results from the June 1999 census are not yet available. Holdings can continue with the same activities even though they
change ownership and conversely can change their activities while continuing in the same farming business.
Subjects
Bankruptcy; Dairy farming
Date
27 July 1999
Reference
92624; 336 c364W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_581474
List of replies to consultation on review of raw cows' drinking milk policy. MAFF. 1999.
List of replies to consultation on review of raw cows' drinking milk policy. MAFF. 1999.
Deposited by
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Type
Deposited paper
Author
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Committed on
21 July 1999
Originated on
1 July 1999
Received on
21 July 1999
Subjects
Untreated milk
Commons Library location
Dep 99/1419
Lords Library location
HINF 99/1392
Date
21 July 1999
Reference
Dep 99/1419
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/depositedpapers/2231715
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the honourable Member for Clwyd South, of 21st January, Official Report, 323 c574W, on BSE, if he will make a statement on the results to date of random sampling for BSE of cows slaughtered under the...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the honourable Member for Clwyd South, of 21st January, Official Report, 323 c574W, on BSE, if he will make a statement on the results to date of random sampling for BSE of cows slaughtered under the...
Asked by
Alan W Williams
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 July 1999
For answer on
16 July 1999
Answered on
16 July 1999
Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd,
South (Mr. Jones), of 21 January 1999, Official Report, column 574, on BSE, if he will make a statement on the results to date of
random sampling for BSE of cows slaughtered under the over thirty months scheme [91477]
Mr. Rooker: The first stage of the survey is now complete. Between January and March a total of 4,163 heads were collected from
cattle slaughtered in the Over Thirty Month Scheme. In accordance with SEACs wishes, the sample was not random but cattle that were
five years of age or older were targeted. This was to ensure that we were sampling cattle that were most likely to be close to
clinical onset and would therefore be positive by examination of brain tissue, if infected.
Of the brains removed, a total of 3,951 were in a suitable condition for examination. So far we only have results of
histopathological examinations. These examinations have identified a total of 18 positive and 3,933 negative brains. We are not yet
in a position to interpret the data fully because we await the results of two other diagnostic tests and a statistical analysis of
the age structure of animals slaughtered under the OTM Scheme.
Subjects
Cattle; Research; Testing; BSE
Date
16 July 1999
Reference
91477; 335 c367W;335 c369W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_583361
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry. - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk (Cm 4286).
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry. - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk (Cm 4286).
Asked by
Michael Jack
(Conservative)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
1 July 1999
For answer on
15 July 1999
Answered on
15 July 1999
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Monopolies and Mergers
Commission report on the market in raw milk. [90027]
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy
industry. [90045]
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry.
[90015]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published on 6 July the former MMC's report on the
supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk. I refer Members to the Secretary of State's speech given during the Dairy Industry debate
on 7 July 1999, Official Report, column 1090-91.
Subjects
Dairy farming; Dairy product; Milk; Untreated milk
Date
15 July 1999
Reference
90015; 335 c268W;335 c271W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_583737
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, If he will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy industry. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk (Cm 4286).
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, If he will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy industry. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk (Cm 4286).
Asked by
Owen Paterson
(Conservative)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
1 July 1999
For answer on
15 July 1999
Answered on
15 July 1999
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Monopolies and Mergers
Commission report on the market in raw milk. [90027]
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy
industry. [90045]
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry.
[90015]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published on 6 July the former MMC's report on the
supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk. I refer Members to the Secretary of State's speech given during the Dairy Industry debate
on 7 July 1999, Official Report, column 1090-91.
Subjects
Dairy farming; Dairy product; Milk; Untreated milk
Date
15 July 1999
Reference
90045; 335 c268W;335 c271W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_570259
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, If he will make a statement on the Monopolies Commission report on the market in raw milk. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw...
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, If he will make a statement on the Monopolies Commission report on the market in raw milk. (Failed OPQ). - Inc ref to 7 July, 334 c1090-1 and ref to MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw...
Asked by
Huw Edwards
(Labour)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
1 July 1999
For answer on
15 July 1999
Answered on
15 July 1999
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Monopolies and Mergers
Commission report on the market in raw milk. [90027]
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for the dairy
industry. [90045]
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about competition in the dairy industry.
[90015]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published on 6 July the former MMC's report on the
supply in Great Britain of raw cows milk. I refer Members to the Secretary of State's speech given during the Dairy Industry debate
on 7 July 1999, Official Report, column 1090-91.
Subjects
Dairy farming; Dairy product; Milk; Untreated milk
Date
15 July 1999
Reference
90027; 335 c268W;335 c270-1W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_570243
Whether there are any studies which show that weight-enhancing hormones in beef and milk enhancing hormones in cows which might increase weight (leading to obesity) or the over-production of milk cannot be passed to humans. [HL 3383].
Whether there are any studies which show that weight-enhancing hormones in beef and milk enhancing hormones in cows which might increase weight (leading to obesity) or the over-production of milk cannot be passed to humans. [HL 3383].
Asked by
Lord Kennet
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Donoughue
(Labour)
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 July 1999
Answered on
9 July 1999
Subjects
Cattle; Health hazard; Hormone; Hormone treatment; Milk; Beef
Date
9 July 1999
Reference
603 c127WA; HL 3383
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_592770
Statement on when he intends to publish the MMC Report on the Supply in Great Britain of Raw Cow's Milk.
Statement on when he intends to publish the MMC Report on the Supply in Great Britain of Raw Cow's Milk.
Asked by
Tony McNulty
(Labour)
Answered by
Stephen Byers
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 July 1999
For answer on
6 July 1999
Answered on
6 July 1999
Mr. McNulty: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the MMC report on the Supply in Great
Britain of raw cows' milk. [90250]
Mr. Byers: I have today published the MMC report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk.
I am requiring major changes to the conditions of sale of raw milk by the dominant supplier, Milk Marque, to prevent it from
exploiting its monopoly position, but have rejected the MMC recommendation to enforce a break-up of Milk Marque.
The MMC have found that Milk Marque, which was responsible for nearly half of the raw milk sales in Great Britain in 1997-98, is
exploiting its monopoly in the supply of raw milk, using a variety of practices which raise the price of raw milk. Consumers pay
more for fresh milk than they should, and the competitiveness of the dairy processing sector is being damaged.
This is a thorough and detailed examination of Milk Marque's selling practices and their effects, and I accept the Commission's
findings.
With regard to the remedies necessary to stop these damaging effects, the MMC have explored the possibilities of either reforming
Milk Marque's auction sales system, or of restructuring of Milk Marque into several independent producer bodies. Both of these
options present difficulties, as the MMC recognises.
The MMC recommends the restructuring of Milk Marque, by dividing it into independent and competing quota-holding bodies, able to
sell their milk on an ordinary commercial basis and to engage in milk processing, that is the making of milk products, if they wish.
I have not accepted this recommendation.
An imposed restructuring of Milk Marque would be a drastic step which would affect a large proportion of the farmers of England and
Wales. I am also conscious that this remedy would take a considerable time to put fully into effect: perhaps as long as two years.
This would itself introduce worrying uncertainties for the industry. There is a strong possibility that by the end of the period the
market may have changed considerably. I believe a wider debate about the future of Milk Marque is appropriate, informed by the
analysis provided by the MMC report.
In the meantime the raw milk market must continue to function, and it must do so on as fair a basis as possible. The report found
that Milk Marque has been able to exploit its position by using its selling system to price discriminate and control the supply of
milk available to the market. It is clear that Milk Marque must reform its sales procedures. I am therefore asking the Director
General of Fair Trading to consider and advise me by the end of this year what changes should be made, after consulting with Milk
Marque and its customers.
Milk Marque will be aware that from 1 March next year it will be subject to the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour and abuse
of market power introduced under the Competition Act 1998. The DGFT will have interim relief powers to stop behaviour which is
damaging third parties.
The MMC also recommends (paragraph 2.400 of the report) a number of interim remedies to prevent Milk Marque abusing its market
power. I accept these recommendations.
I am aware that, in its recent auctions, Milk Marque has relied increasingly on sales on undisclosed contract terms to dispose of
its milk. The undertakings I am seeking will apply to both auction and private sales.
The MMC have concluded that Milk Marque's planned increase in its milk processing capacity may be expected to operate against the
public interest, by enhancing its ability to exploit its monopoly power.
Milk Marque, while it remains a monopoly supplier of raw milk to the processing sector, should not be allowed to extend its milk
processing activities in this way. I am therefore also asking the Director General to seek undertakings from Milk Marque that it
will not take any further steps towards making or carrying out any agreement to acquire or build processing plant without prior
agreement by the Director General, as the MMC have recommended.
Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.
Subjects
Consumers; Competition; Dairy farming; Industry; Price; Milk; Monopoly; Monopolies and Mergers Commission; Sale; Restrictive practice; Milk Marque; Untreated milk
Date
6 July 1999
Reference
90250; 334 c455-6W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_584819
Type
Command paper
Author
Monopolies and Mergers Commission
Laid on
6 July 1999
Subjects
Competition; Dairy farming; Dairy product; Marketing; Price; Milk; Common agricultural policy; Milk Marque; Untreated milk; Marketing boards; United Dairy Farmers
Notes
Received 06.07.99
Commons Library location
CS 404
Date
6 July 1999
Reference
Cm 4286
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Paper/16170
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk from cows which have been injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin and the incidence of breast and prostate cancers in humans; and if he will...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk from cows which have been injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin and the incidence of breast and prostate cancers in humans; and if he will...
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 June 1999
For answer on
23 June 1999
Answered on
23 June 1999
Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the relationship between levels of
insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk from cows which have been injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin and the incidence of
breast and prostate cancers in humans; and if he will make a statement. [87609]
Mr. Rooker: [holding answer 22 June 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on
14 June 1999, Official Report, column 25.
Subjects
Cattle; Cancer; Health hazard; Milk; Bovine somatotropin
Date
23 June 1999
Reference
333 c416W; 87609
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_603458
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessments he has made of the implications for animal welfare of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin on cows. - Including ref to Welfare of Dairy Cattle in 1997, copy in Library. (Holding answer 22 June 1999).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessments he has made of the implications for animal welfare of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin on cows. - Including ref to Welfare of Dairy Cattle in 1997, copy in Library. (Holding answer 22 June 1999).
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
15 June 1999
For answer on
23 June 1999
Answered on
23 June 1999
Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments he has made of the implications for animal
welfare of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin on cows. [87610]
Mr. Rooker: [holding answer 22 June 1999]: A Working Group of the independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has considered
human and animal safety aspects of the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy cows. The Group has reported to the VPC and
the VPC will advise Ministers when it has considered the report. Also, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which also provides
independent advice to Ministers, reported on the Welfare of Dairy Cattle in 1997. The report covers the subject of rBST and copies
were placed in the Library of the House.
Subjects
Animal welfare; Cattle; Bovine somatotropin
Date
23 June 1999
Reference
333 c416W; 87610
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_603457
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make it his policy to publish his decisions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the supply of milk before the end of June.
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, if he will make it his policy to publish his decisions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the supply of milk before the end of June.
Asked by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
9 June 1999
For answer on
14 June 1999
Answered on
14 June 1999
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to publish his decisions on the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply of milk before the end of June. [86875]
Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce the date of the publication of the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain. [86974]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the MMC's report as soon as is
practicable. He has said in the House that he expects to be able to publish before the House rises for the summer recess.
Subjects
Publications; Milk; Monopolies and Mergers Commission
Date
14 June 1999
Reference
86875; 333 c2W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_697448
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he plans to announce the date of the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain.
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he plans to announce the date of the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain.
Asked by
David Tredinnick
(Conservative)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
9 June 1999
For answer on
14 June 1999
Answered on
14 June 1999
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to publish his decisions on the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply of milk before the end of June. [86875]
Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce the date of the publication of the
Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain. [86974]
Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the MMC's report as soon as is
practicable. He has said in the House that he expects to be able to publish before the House rises for the summer recess.
Subjects
Publications; Milk; Monopolies and Mergers Commission
Date
14 June 1999
Reference
86974; 333 c2W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_697451
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will set up an inquiry into the possible link between the growth factor IGF 1 in milk and breast cancer and prostate and colon cancer; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will set up an inquiry into the possible link between the growth factor IGF 1 in milk and breast cancer and prostate and colon cancer; and if he will make a statement.
Asked by
Anthony Steen
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 June 1999
For answer on
14 June 1999
Answered on
14 June 1999
Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an inquiry into the possible link between the
growth factor IGF-1 in milk and breast cancer and prostate and colon cancer; and if he will make a statement. [86424]
Mr. Rooker: A Working Group of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has considered human and animal safety aspects of the use of
recombinant bovine somatotropin in dairy cows, including the effects of IGF-1. The Group has completed its task and is reporting its
findings to the VPC. The VPC will advise Ministers when it has considered the report and it is our intention to publish the VPC's
advice.
Subjects
Breast cancer; Cancer; Health hazard; Hormone treatment; Milk; Prostate cancer; Bowel cancer
Date
14 June 1999
Reference
86424; 333 c25-6W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_697528
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what (a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1st May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. - Inc tables.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what (a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1st May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. - Inc tables.
Asked by
Lord Blencathra
(Conservative)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
11 February 1999
For answer on
14 June 1999
Answered on
14 June 1999
Mr. Maclean: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what (a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have
been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published.
[71518]
Mr. Morley: The following tables set out the details of Reviews, Task Forces and Advisory Groups established by my Department since
1 May 1997, the costs they have incurred to date and the reports they have published.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Review Costs incurred to date (£000) Report published Date report published
Review of the Milk Development Nil No formal report published. n/a
Council Announcement made on 29 October
1997
Review of Bovine Tuberculosis in 289 Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle 16 December 1997
Cattle and Badgers and Badgers Report to the right
hon. Dr. Cunningham MP
Review of the Rates and Structure Nil Review of the Organic Aid 2 April 1998
of Aid to Farmers under the Scheme. A Report by Agriculture
Organic Aid Scheme Departments
Review of the Home-Grown Cereals Nil Final Report 12 May 1998
Authority
Review of the Future Funding of Nil No formal report published. n/a
Regulatory Arrangements for Outcome notified to all
Pesticides interested parties on 1
September 1998
Review of the Current Rules of 355 Final Report 23 September 1998
Quarantine on Imported Pet
Animals
Review of Food From Britain Nil Food From Britain Efficiency 1 October 1998
and Effectiveness Review
Review of Public Analyst 5 Final Report 28 October 1998
Arrangements in England and Wales
Review of Raw Cows' Drinking Milk Nil No formal report published. n/a
Policy Announcement made on 20 January
1999
Review of Arrangements for Nil No formal published report. n/a
Enforcing the Rules on the Final outcome of review
Welfare of Animals Exported Live reported in News Release on 27
to the Continent September 1997
Review of the UK Legislation Nil No formal published report. n/a
Controlling the Disposal of Consultation paper on the
Animal Waste review of the animal
by-products legislation issued
on 6 October 1997. Consultation
paper on a proposed Animal
by-Products Order issued on 12
November 1998. Animal
By-products Order 1999 Came
into force on 1 April 1999.
Review of the Sugar Beet Research Nil No formal report published. n/a
and Education Council Consultation document issued on
29 January 1998. Outcome of
consultation notified in MAFF
News Release 492/98 on 18
December 1998
Review of Fishing Vessel Nil Review of the Licensing of UK March 1999
Licensing Registered Fishing Vessels:
Report of a Joint
Departmental/Industry Working
Group
Review of the Hill Livestock Nil No formal report published. n/a
Compensatory Allowances Scheme Consultation document on the
new Hill Livestock Compensatory
Allowances Scheme issued on 23
April 1999.
Review of Funding Mechanisms for Nil Non-Review ongoing n/a
Flood and Costal Defence
Review of the Hill Farming Nil Non-Review ongoing n/a
Advisory Committee for England,
Wales and Northern Ireland
Review of the Meat Hygiene Appeal Nil Non-Review ongoing n/a
Tribunal
Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries 57 Non-Review ongoing n/a
Review Group
Review of the Access provisions Nil Non-Review ongoing n/a
Under the Agri-Environment
Schemes
Review of Nitrate Sensitive Areas Nil None-Currently being prepared n/a
Scheme for publication
Review of Environmentally Nil None-Currently being prepared n/a
Sensitive areas, Stage IV for publication
Costs incurred (£000) Report published Date report published
Advisory Group
The Independent Scientific Group 134 Interim Report--Towards a 17 August 1998
on Cattle Tuberculosis sustainable policy to control
TB in Cattle--A Scientific
Initiative
Ministers Agricultural Advisory Europe's Agriculture. A Case 18 January 1999
Group for Change
Task Force
Official Group on Nil Official Group on OPs--Report 25 June 1998
Organophosphates to Ministers
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Subjects
Advisory bodies; Expenditure; Government department; Publication; Review; Task forces; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Date
14 June 1999
Reference
333 c20-1W; 71518
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_698501
Statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. - Inc figures.
Statement on the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. - Inc figures.
Asked by
Tony McNulty
(Labour)
Answered by
Elliot Morley
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 June 1999
For answer on
9 June 1999
Answered on
9 June 1999
Mr. McNulty: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the International
Whaling Commission. [86331]
Mr. Morley: The International Whaling Commission's 51st Annual Meeting was held in Grenada from 24 to 28 May. I attended the
meeting, together with officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands, as well as
representatives of environmental organisations.
At the meeting I re-affirmed the United Kingdom's opposition to whaling. I am pleased to say that efforts by Japan to secure a quota
of 50 minke whales, despite the moratorium on commercial whaling, and to weaken the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were defeated by
substantial majorities. There was once again strong criticism of Norway's and Japan's continued whaling activities.
The Chairman of the IWC, the Commissioner for Ireland, announced that discussions with IWC members on the ideas put forward by
Ireland in 1997 were continuing, although he had no real progress to report. The Irish proposals would involve a ban on all whaling,
including scientific whaling, outside coastal waters, with the possibility that countries might authorise whaling under IWC rules
within their own coastal waters for domestic consumption. The proposals also envisage a ban on international trade in whale
products.
In the ensuing debate I made it clear that the UK's ultimate aim remained a permanent, worldwide moratorium on all whaling other
than aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, we recognised that this was not something that was likely to be achieved overnight, or
that could be imposed on members of the IWC against their will. We were, therefore, prepared to consider ideas for reaching interim
solutions on the way to our ultimate destination. But any arrangements of this kind would have to deliver very real benefits to
whale conservation. In this context, we continued to have reservations about some aspects of the Irish proposals, in particular the
possibility of renewed coastal whaling. I noted that it seemed, in any case, unlikely that the Irish proposals represented a
realistic way forward, given the opposition by Japan to ending scientific whaling. In these circumstances it was important to
consider other ways in which the IWC could move forward. In the UK's view these included: the creation of new regional sanctuaries;
changing the emphasis of the IWC's scientific committee away from the management of whale stocks in the context of whaling towards a
much broader exploration of whale conservation issues; continuing the IWC's efforts to assess fully the impact of environment change
for cetaceans; greater involvement of the IWC in issues relating to small cetaceans; encouraging whalewatching as a benign,
potentially very profitable and sustainable way of exploiting a natural resource; continued involvement of the IWC in welfare
issues, including the encouragement of more efficient and humane killing methods, particularly in aboriginal subsistence whaling.
I also reaffirmed that in the UK's view the IWC has an essential role to play as the only international body with worldwide
responsibility for the conservation of whales and that we would continue to participate actively, and constructively, in its
deliberations.
Australia and New Zealand reported that consultations were continuing on the idea of a South Pacific Sanctuary, but that they were
not yet in a position to put forward a formal proposal; the IWC is likely to revert to this topic next year.
The meeting confirmed the central role that environmental concerns now play in the IWC's work. An impressive presentation by the US
Commissioner demonstrated the scale of the potential threat posed to cetaceans by climate change and pollution. I emphasised that,
in the light of our increasing understanding of these threats there was greater concern than in the past about the ability of whale
populations to withstand direct exploitation; in our view this was a cogent reason to adopt a precautionary approach to cetacean
conservation and management. The IWC agreed to provide core funding, including £100,000 drawn from its reserves, for two substantial
programmes of research on the effects of climate change and pollution on cetaceans; it also urged other interested parties to
contribute to these programmes.
The IWC agreed a further 3-year aboriginal subsistence quota permitting inhabitants of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to take two
hump back whales a year. During the meeting the IWC considered whether recent takes under this quota contravened IWC rules, which
prohibit the killing of whale calves: it was not possible to reach a firm conclusion on this matter, as the rules in question are
not entirely clear. However, the agreement to extend the quota amended the rules to remove any uncertainty, and the IWC also agreed
a definition of the term calf for the purposes of this quota. In agreeing the quota the IWC also noted commitments by the Government
of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to ensure that this hunt is properly regulated, to review and improve hunting and killing methods
and to provide a more detailed statement of its aboriginal subsistence needs when seeking any further quota. As amended it is now
absolutely clear that the taking of a cow and calf is forbidden.
The IWC meeting was preceded by a workshop of scientific and veterinary experts which examined methods used to kill whales with a
view to improving their humaneness. The UK delegation to the workshop was led by Professor Sir Colin Spedding, a previous chairman
of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and an internationally recognised authority on welfare issues. The workshop produced an 11 point
action plan to improve the effectiveness and humaneness of whale killing methods, including those used in aboriginal subsistence
hunts. This was endorsed by the Commission in a resolution, which went on to encourage member governments to continue to submit
relevant information to the IWC and to future workshops and to take steps, including the provision of appropriate technical
assistance, to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling.
The Dall's porpoise hunt off the coast of Japan is the largest directed take of small cetaceans in the world. Recent information
suggests that the level of catch may not be sustainable and the IWC adopted a resolution, put forward by the UK, expressing concern
about the sustainability of the hunt, directing the IWC's Scientific Committee to carry out a full review of the affected stocks in
2001 and, in the meantime, inviting the government of Japan to reconsider the quota it sets for Dall's porpoises.
A number of other issues were considered. There was a discussion on whalewatching, in which I emphasised the economic benefits of
this activity, particularly in the Caribbean, and drew attention to the Guidelines of Whalewatching in the UK issued by the
Government. A resolution was adopted drawing attention to the risk posed to consumers of whalemeat (including meat from small
cetaceans) by the high levels of contaminants found in some samples, and requesting the IWC's Scientific Committee to monitor
contaminant burdens in cetaceans and, where necessary, pass the information on to the World Health Organisation and appropriate
national authorities. Other resolutions were agreed requesting the Scientific Committee to develop DNA methods for monitoring the
origin of whalemeat as part of a control scheme for any future whaling and drawing attention to the continued threat posed to small
populations of highly endangered whales by ship strikes, by-catches, and in a limited number of cases, whaling.
Overall, this was a successful meeting for the UK. We achieved all our main objectives, and made progress towards our ultimate
goals. My presence at the meeting underlined the importance that the Government attach to their policy of opposing whaling and to
the role of the IWC.
Subjects
Climate; Conservation; Animal product; Australium; Finance; Fishery; Environment protection; Fishing catch; International organisation; Ethnic group; Hunting; Japan; Pollution; Nature conservation; Norway; Trade; Research; International Whaling Commission; Whales; Quotas
Date
9 June 1999
Reference
332 c348-50W; 86331
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_699383
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what trials of the synthetically genetically-engineered dairy hormone bovine somatotropin were conducted in the UK prior to the imposition of an EU moratorium and between which dates; how many farms were involved; what the locations of the farms involved were; what...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what trials of the synthetically genetically-engineered dairy hormone bovine somatotropin were conducted in the UK prior to the imposition of an EU moratorium and between which dates; how many farms were involved; what the locations of the farms involved were; what...
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 May 1999
For answer on
8 June 1999
Answered on
8 June 1999
Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what trials of the synthetically genetically engineered dairy
hormone bovine somatotropin were conducted in the UK prior to the imposition of an EU moratorium and between which dates; how many
farms were involved; what the locations of the farms involved were; what quantity of milk containing this hormone was sold for human
consumption; and if he will make a statement. [85743]
Mr. Rooker: Two Animal Test Certificates (ATCs) were issued in 1985 under the terms of the Medicines Act 1968 to Monsanto Europe SA
and Lilly Industries Ltd respectively. A total of 38 farms and agricultural institutes were used in the tests at sites across the
country. The timing of trials and the location of the farms and institutes concerned are confidential to the manufacturers but all
trials took place before the imposition of the EU moratorium. No conditions were applied to the disposal of milk from treated cows.
The normal concentration of BST in milk is not affected by the treatment of cows with BST.
Subjects
Animal experiments; Dairy product; Genetic engineering; Drug; EU action; Milk; Research; Bovine somatotropin
Date
8 June 1999
Reference
332 c247-8W; 85743
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_647693
Pollution Prevention and Control Bill (HL). (Bill 107 of 1998/99). House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/58.
Pollution Prevention and Control Bill (HL). (Bill 107 of 1998/99). House of Commons Library Research Paper 99/58.
By
Stephen McGinness; Stephen McGinness
Type
Commons Briefing paper
Legislation
Environmental Protection Act 1990; Pollution Prevention and Control Bill (HL) 1998/99
Subjects
Appeals; Conservation; Air pollution; Licensing; Environment protection; Health hazard; EU law; Energy; Industry; Integrated pollution control; Pollution; Offshore structure; Pollution control; Noise; Scotland; Statistic; Wale; BATNEEC; Statutory instruments
Topics
Pollution
Date
3 June 1999
Reference
RP99-58
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/337466
List of Honourable Members who have written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the Monopoly and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cow's milk. DTI. 1999.
List of Honourable Members who have written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the Monopoly and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cow's milk. DTI. 1999.
Deposited by
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Deposited paper
Author
Department of Trade and Industry
Committed on
27 May 1999
Originated on
24 May 1999
Received on
27 May 1999
Subjects
Milk; Monopoly; Monopolies and Mergers Commission; Untreated milk
Commons Library location
Dep 99/1096
Lords Library location
HINF 99/1064
Date
27 May 1999
Reference
Dep 99/1096
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/depositedpapers/2231996
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his Answer of 28th April 1999, 330 c194W, on raw cow's milk, if he will list the honourable Members who wrote to him in April regarding the Monopoly and Mergers enquiry. - Including fact that am placing in...
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his Answer of 28th April 1999, 330 c194W, on raw cow's milk, if he will list the honourable Members who wrote to him in April regarding the Monopoly and Mergers enquiry. - Including fact that am placing in...
Asked by
Michael John Foster
(Labour)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
20 May 1999
For answer on
26 May 1999
Answered on
26 May 1999
Mr. Michael J. Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1999, Official
Report, column 194, on raw cows' milk, if he will list the hon. Members who wrote to him in April regarding the Monopoly and Mergers
inquiry. [85360]
Dr. Howells: I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the hon. Members who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry in April regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw
cows' milk.
Subjects
Correspondence; Dairy product; Member; Milk; Monopolies and Mergers Commission; Untreated milk
Date
26 May 1999
Reference
332 c196W; 85360
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_701260
Supplementary on badger culling and concern for health of diary cow and diseases caused by three milkings a day.
Supplementary on badger culling and concern for health of diary cow and diseases caused by three milkings a day.
Asked by
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford
(Conservative)
Oral question - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
17 May 1999
Date
17 May 1999
Reference
601 c10-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_625066/-question
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, When he expects to announce his decision on Milk Marque following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report. (Failed OPQ)
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, When he expects to announce his decision on Milk Marque following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report. (Failed OPQ)
Asked by
Colin Breed
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Stephen Byers
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
22 April 1999
For answer on
6 May 1999
Answered on
6 May 1999
Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his decision on Milk Marque following
the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. [82386]
Mr. Byers: I am aware that many members and their constituents in the dairy industry have a keen interest in the Monopolies and
Mergers Commission report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cows' milk. I will publish it as soon as is practicable.
Subjects
Milk Marque
Date
6 May 1999
Reference
82386; 330 c445W;330 c439W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_570854
Growth promoting hormones have been at the centre of a long running trade dispute between the EU and US. The problem arises because of an EU ban on imports of meat from cattle treated with such hormones. Beef producers in the US, Canada and elsewhere commonly treat their cattle with hormone growth promoters; EU policy thus prevents such beef being sold on the European market. While the EU maintains that the policy is based on scientific evidence regarding possible health concerns, the US complained to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that the EU ban was no more than a trade barrier disguised as health measures. In February 1998, a WTO Dispute Settlement Body ruled that the EU ban violated international trade rules. The EU now has until 13 May 1999 to comply with its WTO obligations. This POSTnote looks at the scientific basis of the EU policy and examines the options open to the EU in the light of the WTO ruling.
Growth promoting hormones have been at the centre of a long running trade dispute between the EU and US. The problem arises because of an EU ban on imports of meat from cattle treated with such hormones. Beef producers in the US, Canada and elsewhere commonly treat their cattle with...
By
Type
POSTnote
Subjects
Cattle; Disease control; EU external trade; Import control; Hormone treatment; Standard; USA; Beef; World Trade Organization
Topics
Animals; Food; Animal diseases
Date
1 May 1999
Reference
POST-PN-127
http://data.parliament.uk/resources/344855
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his Answer of 26th February 1999, 326 c469W, if he will list the names of the honourable Members who wrote to him in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March regarding the Monopoly and Mergers enquiry into the...
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his Answer of 26th February 1999, 326 c469W, if he will list the names of the honourable Members who wrote to him in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March regarding the Monopoly and Mergers enquiry into the...
Asked by
Michael John Foster
(Labour)
Answered by
Kim Howells
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
21 April 1999
For answer on
28 April 1999
Answered on
28 April 1999
Mr. Michael J. Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 26 February 1999, Official
Report, column 469, if he will list the names of the hon. Members who wrote to him in (a) January, (b) February and (c) March
regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry into the supply of raw cows' milk. [82053]
Dr. Howells: I am placing in the Library of the House a list of the hon. Members who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Trade and Industry in January, February and March regarding the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply
in Great Britain of raw cows' milk.
Subjects
Milk; Monopolies; Untreated milk
Date
28 April 1999
Reference
82053; 330 c194W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_753309
List of Honourable Members who have written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the Monopoly and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cow's milk. DTI. 1999.
List of Honourable Members who have written to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the Monopoly and Mergers Commission's report on the supply in Great Britain of raw cow's milk. DTI. 1999.
Deposited by
Department of Trade and Industry
Type
Deposited paper
Author
Department of Trade and Industry
Committed on
28 April 1999
Originated on
28 April 1999
Received on
28 April 1999
Subjects
Milk; Monopoly; Monopolies and Mergers Commission; Untreated milk
Commons Library location
Dep 99/907
Lords Library location
HINF 99/868
Date
28 April 1999
Reference
Dep 99/907
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/depositedpapers/2232202
Suckler cow premium quotas: explanatory guide and application form for quota from the 1999 national reserve. MAFF. 1998.
Suckler cow premium quotas: explanatory guide and application form for quota from the 1999 national reserve. MAFF. 1998.
Deposited by
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Type
Deposited paper
Author
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Committed on
21 April 1999
Originated on
1 January 1998
Received on
21 April 1999
Subjects
Agriculture; Subsidies; Suckler cow premiums
Commons Library location
Dep 99/838
Date
21 April 1999
Reference
Dep 99/838
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/depositedpapers/2233426
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what criteria are used to award suckler cow quota to (a) new entrants to suckler production, (b) existing producers wanting extra quota and (c) dairy farmers seeking to convert to suckler production; and what rules exist regarding minimum and maximum amounts...
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what criteria are used to award suckler cow quota to (a) new entrants to suckler production, (b) existing producers wanting extra quota and (c) dairy farmers seeking to convert to suckler production; and what rules exist regarding minimum and maximum amounts...
Asked by
James Paice
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
14 April 1999
For answer on
19 April 1999
Answered on
19 April 1999
Mr. Paice: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used to award suckler cow quota to (a) new
entrants to suckler production, (b) existing producers wanting extra quota and (c) dairy farmers seeking to convert to suckler
production; and what rules exist regarding minimum and maximum amounts which may be awarded. [81373]
Mr. Rooker: Producers who meet strictly defined criteria may apply to the appropriate category of the Suckler Cow Quota national
reserve for a quota allocation. Some of the categories cover new entrants and others existing producers wanting extra quota. There
is no category which specifically covers dairy farmers seeking to convert to suckler production, although such producers may qualify
under a category for first-time claimants. In addition, both new and existing producers are free to buy or lease quota from other
producers.
The maximum amount of quota which may be allocated varies depending on the category applied to, the circumstances of the applicant
and the availability of quota in the reserve. There are no rules governing the minimum amounts which may be allocated to a producer,
but it is not possible to allocate less than 0.1 of a quota.
Further information is contained in the documents `Explanatory Guide to Suckler Cow Premium Scheme Quotas' and `Application for
Quota from the National Reserve' which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
Subjects
Agriculture; Livestock; Subsidies; Suckler cow premiums
Date
19 April 1999
Reference
81373; 329 c445-6W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_783344
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what controls exist in respect of the sale of dairy products of US origin where bovine somatotropin may have been used in their production. - (Holding answer 30 March 1999).
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what controls exist in respect of the sale of dairy products of US origin where bovine somatotropin may have been used in their production. - (Holding answer 30 March 1999).
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 1999
For answer on
13 April 1999
Answered on
13 April 1999
Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls exist in respect of the sale of dairy products of US
origin where bovine somatotropin may have been used in their production. [78983]
Mr. Rooker: [holding answer 30 March 1999]: All cows' milk contains small quantities of naturally occurring bovine somatotropin
(BST). the manufactured form of BST (rBST) is not permitted for use in the EU. rBST is almost indistinguishable from naturally
occurring BST and it is not practicable to establish through testing whether BST is present because of administration of rBST to the
animal. Although rBST is permitted in the USA, the country of origin is normally given on most food labels or a manufacturer's
address is given.
Subjects
Dairy products; USA; Bovine somatotropin
Date
13 April 1999
Reference
329 c220W; 78983
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_651196
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the health implications of the consumption of dairy products where bovine somatotropin has been used in the production process.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what assessment he has made of the health implications of the consumption of dairy products where bovine somatotropin has been used in the production process.
Asked by
Norman Baker
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 1999
For answer on
30 March 1999
Answered on
30 March 1999
Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the health implications of the
consumption of dairy products where bovine somatotropin has been used in the production process. [78984]
Mr. Rooker: Bovine somatotropin (BST) occurs naturally in all cows milk. The manufactured form of BST is not currently permitted for
use in the EU. If its use were to be authorised, it would be classified as a veterinary medicinal product. Products have previously
been assessed by independent scientific committees against the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. I asked the
independent Veterinary Products Committee to set up a Working Group, which is currently consulting the latest scientific information
on animal and human safety, and the Committee is expected to offer advice to Ministers on the safety of BST in the summer.
Subjects
Dairy products; Health; EU action; Bovine somatotropin
Date
30 March 1999
Reference
78984; 328 c659-60W;328 c660W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_727515
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is the policy of his Department in relation to stocks of cheese made with milk from a dairy herd which subsequently experiences an outbreak of bovine TB. - Includes ref to Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is the policy of his Department in relation to stocks of cheese made with milk from a dairy herd which subsequently experiences an outbreak of bovine TB. - Includes ref to Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995.
Asked by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Jowell
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of Health
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 March 1999
For answer on
24 March 1999
Answered on
24 March 1999
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department in relation to stocks of cheese made with
milk from a dairy herd which subsequently experiences an outbreak of bovine TB. [78110]
Ms Jowell: The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 require that raw cows milk shall come from animals belonging to a herd
which is officially tuberculosis free, otherwise it may only be sold for human consumption after it has been heat treated.
Where cheese has been made with heat treated milk there would be no food safety implications. However, in the case of cheese made
from unpasteurised cows milk, the Department would liaise with food authorities to ensure that there were no public health
implications or food safety risks before allowing the marketing of that cheese.
Subjects
Dairy products; Milk; Bovine tuberculosis; Cheese
Date
24 March 1999
Reference
78110; 328 c315-6W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_651574
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, how many urban parish councils he has approved within the boundaries of unitary councils; if he will list the council areas concerned; and if he will make a statement on the statutory powers given to the urban...
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, how many urban parish councils he has approved within the boundaries of unitary councils; if he will list the council areas concerned; and if he will make a statement on the statutory powers given to the urban...
Asked by
Mike Hancock
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
(Labour)
Answering body
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 March 1999
For answer on
18 March 1999
Answered on
18 March 1999
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many urban parish councils he has
approved within the boundaries of unitary councils; if he will list the council areas concerned; and if he will make a statement on
the statutory powers given to the urban parish councils. [76619]
Ms Armstrong: Under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Secretary of State has approved 8 new parishes within unitary
authority areas: Allerton Bywater, and Horsforth in Leeds; Southsea in Portsmouth; Beverley, and Cottingham in the East Riding of
Yorkshire; Headland in Hartlepool; East Cowes on the Isle of Wight; and Mossley in Tameside. Using the Department's standard
statistical definition of urban areas and population from the 1991 census, with the exception of Allerton Bywater, all the new
parishes can be defined as urban. These parishes have the same statutory powers as any other parish council.
Subjects
Parish and town councils
Date
18 March 1999
Reference
76619; 327 c725W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_691745
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many confirmed transmissible spongiform encephalopathy cases there were by species in animals other than cattle in Great Britain at the latest available date. - Inc tables.
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many confirmed transmissible spongiform encephalopathy cases there were by species in animals other than cattle in Great Britain at the latest available date. - Inc tables.
Asked by
Lord Clark of Windermere
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Rooker
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food
Type
Written question
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 February 1999
For answer on
4 March 1999
Answered on
4 March 1999
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many confirmed transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
cases there were by species in animals other than cattle in Great Britain at the latest available date. [73410]
Mr. Rooker: Scrapie, one of the family of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, has been present in sheep for over 250 years.
This disease has been notifiable since 1 January 1993 in response to the EC Directive governing trade in sheep and goats
(91/68/EEC). The numbers of cases of scrapie in sheep and goats confirmed in Great Britain from 1 January 1993 to 1 March 1999 are
as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Number of cases
Sheep 2,281
Goats 8
Total 2,289
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
As regards other spongiform encephalopathies, the following table gives the number of cases confirmed in exotic animals and felines
in Great Britain since 1986:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
Species Number of cases
Ankole cow 2
Bison 1
Cheetah{1} 5
Domestic cat 85
Eland 6
Gemsbok 1
Kudu 6
Nyala 1
Ocelot 2
Oryx (Arabian) 1
Oryx (scimitar horned) 1
Puma 3
Tiger {2} 2
Lion 1
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
{1} Four litter mates also died in zoos abroad {2} Plus one inconclusive Note: Data as at 25 February 1999
Subjects
Animals; Disease; Goat; Sheep; Transmissible encephalopathies; Scrapie
Date
4 March 1999
Reference
73410; 326 c911-2W
House
House of Commons
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/Hansard/PARLIAMENTARY_QUESTION_756126
Showing results 2401 - 2500 of 3,208 in 2.79 seconds.