Foot and Mouth: Rural Recovery

House of Lords written question – answered on 7th November 2001.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood Conservative

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they have not fully accepted the recommendations of Lord Haskins' report on Rural Recovery after Foot-and-Mouth Disease; and whether this means that they have no confidence in Lord Haskins.

Photo of Lord Whitty Lord Whitty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The Government made an immediate and positive response to the constructive and thoughtful report of my noble friend Lord Haskins. On the day the report was published, on 18 October, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs responded immediately to just one of his numerous recommendations—that extra resources should be provided for the Business Recovery Fund. That her announcement involved expenditure of £24 million through an extension of the Business Recovery Fund shows just how seriously we took his recommendations and those of the Rural Task Force, also published on 18 October. As well as giving this immediate and practical response, Ministers indicated that they would consider the other recommendations in the report and provide a full response shortly.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No0 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.