14 Jun 2004 : Column 607W
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 14 June 2004
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Air Quality
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to monitor the prevalence of particulate matter below 2.5 microns as part of her Department's air quality strategy. [176896]
Alun Michael: As part of the Air Quality Strategy review, Defra will be considering the most appropriate approach for monitoring PM 1 0 and PM2.5.
Defra keeps under review PM2.5 monitoring and the need for possible improvements. The Air Quality Expert Group is due to publish a draft report for comment this summer on particulate matter in the UK. This will include an assessment of PM 1 0 and PM2.5 levels in the UK and recommendations concerning monitoring. The Air Quality Expert Group report will also feed into the review of the Air Quality Strategy.
In addition, there are developments in Europe under Clean Air For Europe on particulate matter which will also feed into the review of the Air Quality Strategy. These include a reconsideration of the number of PM2.5 monitoring sites in each member state.
Community Transport Fund
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the criteria are against which bids for the Community Transport Fund are assessed. [160104]
Alun Michael: Bids for the Rural Transport Partnership Scheme which is run by the Countryside Agency on behalf of Defra are assessed against the following criteria:
1. Community and partner support
That the application has a wide measure of local support.
That the application will cater primarily for the needs of rural areas or rural residents and integrate these with the needs of visitors.
That the project will meet an identified transport need. This will be assessed by examination of the evidence of need provided in the proposal, the scale and nature of research and consultation undertaken, the Countryside Agency Officer's existing knowledge of the area and their consultation with representatives of key organisations working there.
The project will not be to the detriment of other rural services and will not compete significantly with other transport services or facilities.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 608W
The project is unlikely to proceed without assistance from the Rural Transport Partnership.
That the application represents best value for money.
The value for money of the proposal in terms of its unit costs and in terms of the additionality obtained by the local transport network in return for the investment requested, or any other relevant factors.
(For project applications) that it is likely to be socially, environmentally or financially viable by the time the funding from the Countryside Agency ceases. Ideally, all projects should seek to break even by at least the end of the funding period, although it is often found that during the early years of operation there is a deficit, i.e. receipts do not cover costs. For non-profit making schemes, with costs often provided on an ongoing basis in kind, from fund-raising or from grants, commercial viability is not so important.
However, it should be possible to establish evidence of the economic or social benefits of such schemes over time and it is expected that this will be used to justify continued funding.
The proportion of the total capital and revenue costs requested from the Countryside Agency (grant rate) and the leverage on other funds obtained from this.
That there is a firm funding commitment from other funding bodies.
How well the application fits the overall aim of the RTP scheme.
The aims and objectives of the proposal and how these link with those of Defra and the Countryside Agency. Bids are particularly encouraged for projects that meet vital villages, market towns and wider welcome programme objectives. As a guide the following groups denote whether a project will be classified as a vital village, market towns or wider welcome project.
Vital Villages—transport projects which meet a locally identified transport need, or relate to the provision of access to locally provided services. Particularly favoured projects are those which address issues of social exclusion.
Market Towns—transport projects which enhance the role of an area as a service hub. Particularly favoured projects are these which have a close relationship to prioritised market towns and the health check process.
Wider Welcome—transport projects related to recreation and tourism with a rural destination. Particularly favoured projects are those with an emphasis on sustainable development, or links to other Countryside Agency interests and initiatives.
The degree to which the proposal relates to regional and local policy.
The implications of not providing funding support for the proposal.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 609W
The expected benefits of the proposal.
The competence of the applicant (and fund holder, if different) to implement, manage and administer the proposal.
How the proposal will be implemented and its development strategy.
The arrangements made for monitoring and evaluation.
In April 2003 an additional criterion was added:
Should target areas suffering from deprivation.
Air Routes
Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the (a) routes and (b) airlines which operate each route on which it is permitted for dogs and cats to travel in the passenger cabin. [175548]
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 26May 2004]: Guide and hearing dogs only may be transported in the cabin under the Pet Travel Scheme on the following routes and airlines:
Larnaca to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Paphos to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Paris (Charles de Gaulle) to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland
Frankfurt to London Heathrow: Lufthansa
Valletta to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Amsterdam (Schiphol) to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland
Faro to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Alicante to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Almeria to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Arrecife to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Fuerteventura to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Las Palmas to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Madrid to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland
Malaga to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Palma, Majorca to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
Palma, Majorca to London Heathrow: BMI British Midland
Tenerife South, Canary Islands to London Gatwick: Britannia Airways
No route is approved to carry cats in the cabin at present.
Asbestos
Mr. Paterson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether conformity with the provisions of the Control of
14 Jun 2004 : Column 610W
Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 is (a) included and (b) to be included in the cross-compliance requirements of the Mid-Term Common Agricultural Policy Review. [176646]
Alun Michael: The Carcinogens Directive, partly implemented in the UK by the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, is not included in the final list of 19 Directives/requirements which form the list of Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) for cross compliance.
The Carcinogens Directive was included in the original list of 38 possible SMRs. The UK supported the retention of Health and Safety Directives in cross compliance but as a result of the negotiations the European Commission reduced the list and the Health and Safety Directives, including the Carcinogens Directive, were removed. The Commission will undertake a review of cross compliance requirements in 2007.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |