>From Hansard, 30.10.06, written answers, col. 67w-68w
Waterways
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs what assessment was made of the effects of the reduction in
grant in aid for 2006-07 to British Waterways prior to the decision being
made; what his most recent assessment is of the effect of the reduction;
and if he will make a statement. [94936]
Barry Gardiner: I have consulted closely with the chairman and chief
executive of British Waterways about the in-year cut of about 7 per cent. of
grant in aid amounting to £3.94 million. They accept that Government have
provided £524 million in funding for British Waterways since 2000, of which
£452 million was for waterways in England and Wales. Over this period,
British Waterways has substantially improved the state of its waterways and
has eliminated the safety backlog. It has also concluded substantial
regeneration and property projects and facilitated the restoration of some
200 miles of derelict canals. The current assessment of the effect of the
reduction in the 2006-07 budgets is that there is likely to be some delay to
capital works and set back the date by which British Waterways will be able
to reduce year-on-year the requirements for grant in aid from Government.
I will be meeting the chief executive again and will look further at the
implications of the cuts in funding and how British Waterways can continue
to contribute to Government priorities.
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the backlog of
maintenance works on waterways. [95585]
Barry Gardiner: British Waterways received an additional £42 million
between 1999 and 2004, which has enabled it to clear its backlog of safety
maintenance. There remains a general maintenance arrear of £119 million.
It is responsible for about 60 per
30 Oct 2006 : Column 68W
cent. of the navigable waterways in England and Wales, about three
quarters of which are canals.
The Environment Agency manages about 1,000 kilometres of waterways in
England and Wales, roughly 25 per cent. of the total. Its backlog of safety
maintenance work to its waterways assets, all of which are on navigable
rivers, is currently approximately £50 million.
The Broads Authority manages about 3 per cent. of the waterways of
England and Wales. It has a backlog of dredging estimated at £21 million,
but the costs of disposal and maintenance are still being evaluated.
Information on the condition of waterways owned or managed by non-public
navigation authorities is not available.
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs what the effect of the cuts in the budget of British Waterways will
be
on canals in Sandwell. [94573]
Barry Gardiner: British Waterways is restructuring its organisation in order
to deliver improvements in its customer service and business efficiency.
As part of this there are proposals for the merger of the West Midlands and
Central Shires business units which include Sandwell. These proposals are
currently subject to consultation with the trade unions. The impact on the
canals in Sandwell will be assessed in parallel.
This process of restructuring has been accelerated by the recent reduction
in Government funding.
FROM LORDS HANSARD, 30.10.06
[I give 2 consecutive extracts from oral questions, the first mentions BW,
the
2nd purely for further background]
1)
Natural England
2.45 pm
Lord Taylor of Holbeach asked Her Majesty´s Government:
What budget cuts are proposed for Natural England, which was
launched on 10 October.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, as part of Defra´s recent budget reduction
30 Oct 2006 : Column 5
exercise, the 2006-07 budgets for the founding bodies of Natural England,
which are English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Rural
Development Service, were cut by £14 million, £12.9 million of which falls
to
Natural England. We hope to make an announcement on the 2007-08
budget in the next few weeks.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. As
usual, he was disarming in his candour. However, the candour cannot
conceal the crisis that has overwhelmed Defra. What jobs will be lost in the
light of the cuts and what of Natural England´s promised programme will be
shelved or reduced?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the technical adjustment to this year´s budget is
approximately £200 million. Our overall spend is £3.7 billion. I do not
diminish the significance of £200 million-noble Lords should not
misunderstand me-but it is a very small part of our overall budget. Within
that, the adjustments to each of the bodies affected are quite small.
No part of Natural England´s programme will be affected. Some areas will
proceed a little more slowly than others. Its start-up money has not been
affected. It is important for a new organisation to be able to start up
effectively-it was launched earlier this month. Its core budget is £170
million. When other funding streams for which it is responsible are factored
in, that rises to some £225 million. It has overall responsibility for more
than
£400 million when one adds in the EU agrimoney schemes. I realise that
that is not core funding, but Natural Englandcan comfortably cope this year
at the start-up. I understand that no one will be dismissed from their job
as a
result of the cuts to which the Question refers.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as I understand it, Natural England´s major
function is to enhance the environment. Is this not a crazy time to be
contemplating a cut in the budget, especially when the whole budget is petty
cash in public expenditure terms? Will my noble friend reconsider the cut?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I would probably have difficulty explaining to
anybody that £200 million is petty cash, but it is petty cash in terms of
our
overall budget of £3.7 billion. It is a small part of the money. We have a
satisfactory arrangement for readjusting Natural England´s budget, and we
do not envisage any of its major schemes being affected. Some will
probably start a little later than others-it had a spending moratorium in
the
period before it was launched. I understand that the moratorium was lifted
on the launch day of 11 October.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, despite those answers, the Minister said
categorically on 16 October that the budgets for flood defences would not be
cut and that it would be possible to proceed with the EU water
30 Oct 2006 : Column 6
framework directive. Can he confirm that that is still the case, or will
there
not inevitably be some long-term cuts?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that Answer was about the spending of the
Environment Agency. I recall that I was asked specifically about flood
defence work. That is not affected by this budget adjustment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, although the Minister said that the cut was
small beer, does he acceptthat it would have been crucial to many areas of
Natural England´s work? Does he not regret the announcement of a £12
million budget cut on theday of the launch? That is hardly good PR. Isthe
£200 million cut due to overspend or underspend in Defra? Various views on
what caused it have been put around.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is both. The£200 million is made up of
approximately £40 million of work for various agencies that was delayed last
year and brought into this year, as that helped to meet last year´s
pressures
relating to TB compensation and the final cost of foot and mouth disease;
£55 million of work that was delayed last year and moved into this year to
cope with a reduction in end-of-year funding arrangements; and £65 million
of surplus capital charges that turned out to be no longer available under
new rules. Some £23 million related to the RPA´s running costs, and there
was £10 million extra emergency preparedness for avian influenza. That is
how the £200 million is made up; there is no secret about it. Some was
underspend, some was overspend, and some was expenditure delayed last
year and brought into this year.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that
British Waterways has announced that about 180 of its staff were made
redundant? Can he say what short-term impact that is likely to have on
British Waterways´ key role in urban regeneration?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I probably need a bit more advice on British
Waterways, because Natural England does not deal with it. British
Waterways is a trading body. It is true that it has had a cut, but, again,
it is a
fairly small percentage of its income. Some people might say that the cut is
not the reason why it has had to make the redundancies, but I do not know. I
would have to take further advice on that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, was the scale of the
forthcoming cuts inherent in the Question known to the Government when
the Bill setting up the new agency was going through the House?
Lord Rooker: Certainly not, my Lords. The reality is that a team of
Ministers
went into Defra at the time of the reshuffle in May, and at the end of June
it
was drawn to our attention that there was a hole in the budget. We are
trying
to deal with it as best as we can.
30 Oct 2006 : Column 7
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain who is
responsible for what I can only describe as cock-ups in the accountancy in
Defra, and are their heads going to roll?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that that is a fair way
of
putting it. I have explained how the pressures behind the £200 million have
come about. The fact that they came to light and were put to Ministers only
at the end of June, to be dealt with this year, makes it more difficult.
People
have expectations. The budget was fixed at least at the last CSR and would
therefore have been known last autumn. It certainly was not known when
the legislation for Natural England was going through. I have explained that
each amount is justifiable, and we cannot ignore them. We have to deal with
this as best as we can, as we have tried to do in the department´s overall
budget and spending of nearly £4 billion.
2)
Defra: Budget
2.52 pm
Lord Livsey of Talgarth asked Her Majesty´s Government:
What cuts the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
has had to make withinthe department as a result of deficits incurred
bythe Rural Payments Agency arising from thesingle farm payments
information technology programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Rural Payments Agency business
change programme did not lead to deficits that required cuts within Defra.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I may be wrong, but in his original
Answer to the previous Question I thought I heard the Minister refer to cuts
in the Rural Payments Agency. Will the noble Lord explain the further £200
million cuts in the Defra budget this year? Many of us feel that that is
very
much related to the massive overspend in the Rural Payments Agency and
its problems with the single farm payments scheme. Surely, the shortfall
should have come from the contingency fund and not from slashing vet
services at a time when we must be concerned about bird flu. There are
also problems in the Environment Agency, and we have just heard about the
cuts in Natural England.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. So that there is no confusion, the Rural
Payments Agency business change programme did not lead to these
adjustments. The £23 million comes in elsewhere. In fact, the Rural
Payments Agency has had additional funds made available to it to cope with
the difficulties that have arisen over single farm payments. I could give
the
House a lecture-it would not thank me for it-about the resource elements
and the capital elements. The fact is that the figures stack up. Of the £200
million,
30 Oct 2006 : Column 8
only about £23 million-about 11 per cent-is the responsibility of the RPA,
but that is not the cause of the deficit in relation to the change programme
because the Rural Payments Agency had extra funds to deliver that. It is
true that there are some difficulties, but one cannot blame the single farm
payments or the Rural Payments Agency, in the way that has been done in
the media, for the £200 million adjustment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when does the Minister expect the single payments
scheme to be running properly so that the farmers are paid correctly and on
time?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say to my noble friend, as I have said before, our
expectation is to get the system running adequately. With the changes that
need to be made to it, it will be 2008 beforehand, and we need to go through
the 2006 and 2007 payment years before we get there. In other words, as
the chief executive said, supported by Ministers, it will be at least a
couple of
years before it is up and running in a stable way.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an
assurance that people applyingfor entry- and higher-level payments under
the environmental schemes will not lose out as a result of the deficits in
the
Rural Payments Agency?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that they will, although
those schemes have a degree of flexibility. It is not easy for everyone to
get
into them because of the points system and the red tape, but it is not as a
result of the adjustment that we have had to make.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept the finding of the
National Audit Office that there were no checks, no matrixes and no proper
management in the arrangements for bringing inthe single farm payment? I
will give him some examples: the Accenture contract was estimated in
November 2003 as being £27.5 million but turned out in March 2006 to be
£50 million; the land register was estimated at £6.8 million but eventually
turnedout to be £16.1 million; and the customer communications contract
was originally estimated in 2003 at £1.2 million and turned out to be £9.8
million. Did the department not realise that it would have some customer
inquiries due to those major changes?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is not a happy tale. Anyone who wants further
and better particulars can go and sit in the gallery of the Public Accounts
Committee of the other place this afternoon, because it will be taking
evidence on the report that it published some 10 days ago. There have been
difficulties with the planning. I am concentrating on the present and the
future. Plenty of other people are looking at what happened in the past. We
have to try to learn the lessons from the past, which is why the system
cannot be turned out overnight. At least a year
30 Oct 2006 : Column 9
was lost-between November 2003 and November 2004-through gaps in
the planning and implementation of the arrangements, but the same start
date was kept to, which probably explains something about what happened.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, with reference to the sad saga, the Minister has
today confirmed that there were £200 million in cuts which he described in
terms of segments, but if I recall rightly, the Treasury imposed cuts in the
previous financial year. Will he remind the House of the size of those cuts,
notwithstanding the fact that some will run into the new financial year?
Will
he also say to what extentthe EU commission intends to levy fines on us for
the shambles in the Rural Payments Agency?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the latter question will have to wait
for at least a couple of years before we have closed down the accounts for
this year. It will take time. I know nothing about the cuts for last year,
if that
is the word that was used. The fact of the matter is that this is in-year a
technical adjustment to the budget. It is unusual, but we have to do it.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to assure the
House that there is no truth in the rumour of a £3 million cut in the
veterinary
service? Does he agree that there would be deep concern were such a cut
to be put into effect, as it would cause many people to doubt the capacity
of
the veterinary service to deal with future outbreaks of diseases such as
foot
and mouth disease?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for mynoble friend´s question on the
ground that there have been some myths abroad about the so-called cut
of£3 million to the State Veterinary Service. There has been no £3 million
cut to the State Veterinary Service this year. In fact, there has been no
cut to
the State Veterinary Service this year. The overall budget for the SVS
remains the same after a switch of funding where money was switched
around from the capital budget, which was increased by £3 million to replace
resource money. The budget for the State Veterinary Service has been
increased this year by £16 million, and another £3 million will be made
available for avian influenza preparedness, giving a net increase of £19
million for 2006-07, the year we are in at the moment. There has been no £3
million cut. It is true that there was a cut in the resource area, but that
was
money swapped from capital. It did not lose any money. The State
Veterinary Service got the same amount of money as was in the original
budget, so talk about a £3 million cut is not correct.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, did any of the overspent money go to
farmers?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
