House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 14 Jul 2004 (pt 3)

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1139W—continued

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much she estimates the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has cost landowners. [183126]

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1140W

Alun Michael: There is no obligation on landowners to incur any expenditure in respect of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Landowners will incur costs if they make use of the appeals and restrictions system, but there is no charge for using these systems which have been kept as simple as possible.

Local highway authorities and National Park authorities, in their capacity as access authorities under the Act, have powers to enable and manage open access in their areas and will be responsible for putting in place infrastructure such as signage, footbridges and gates. We hope that landowners and managers will work closely with them to ensure the new right is implemented in a way which benefits the public without adversely affecting the management of the land. In order to facilitate this the Countryside Agency is supporting a series of half-day briefing sessions, open to all landowners and land managers, organised by the Country Land and Business Association and supported by the National Farmers' Union and the Moorland Association. At the briefings, landowners and land managers receive free advice on liabilities, the restrictions system and land management practice.

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of the consultation, mapping and appeals and other associated costs of the implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [183128]

Alun Michael: Defra is funding the Countryside Agency, National Park Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to implement Part I of the Act. To the end of May 2004 the Countryside Agency had spent £30.19 million. The Agency expects to spend a further £14.9 million in the current financial year. National Park Authorities have been allocated an additional £4.725 million since 2002–03, including £1.85 million for the current financial year. The Planning Inspectorate has received £2.15 million over the last three financial years to deal with appeals against the inclusion of land on provisional maps and restriction appeals. It expects to spend no more than £2 million in the current financial year. Local authorities have been funded to establish local access forums under Part V of the Act.

Further, I have announced funding of £2 million for 2004–05 towards an access management grant scheme to support local authorities in implementing the new right of access. The scheme runs to the end of March 2005 and I will be considering whether to extend it in the light of its success this year and in the context of Defra's future spending priorities.

Egg Production

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many eggs were produced in England, broken down by (a) type and (b) production method in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [183004]

Alun Michael: The following table provides a breakdown of UK egg production by use, grade and production method. In order to preserve the confidentiality of survey respondents this information is not separately available at the England level.

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1141W

UK hen eggs (million dozen)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total production 884 873 877 902 904 850 855 917 972 992

of which:

For human consumption 787 774 775 794 792 743 747 806 858 879

For hatching 85 87 91 95 96 93 95 96 95 97

Hatching for export 3 4 3 4 7 5 5 6 10 7

Waste 9 9 8 8 9 8 9 9 9 9

Human consumption by grade

Very large ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 52 39 36 36 38 43 41 46

Large ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 283 276 293 285 290 320 328 363

Medium ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 304 325 318 293 281 305 318 319

Small ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 49 51 41 36 36 39 42 37

Seconds ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 54 63 64 59 66 68 68 68

Ungraded (farmhouse consumption and direct from producer to egg processor) ⁽⁴⁾— ⁽⁴⁾— 34 40 39 35 34 31 62 45

Human consumption by production method

Laying cages 673 668 664 667 644 578 556 578 595 606

Free range 84 83 88 102 115 122 148 184 210 220

Barn 30 23 23 26 33 43 44 44 53 53

⁽⁴⁾ Not available.

	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
Total production	884	873	877	902	904	850	855	917	972	992

of which:
For human consumption	787	774	775	794	792	743	747	806	858	879
For hatching	85	87	91	95	96	93	95	96	95	97
Hatching for export	3	4	3	4	7	5	5	6	10	7
Waste	9	9	8	8	9	8	9	9	9	9

Human consumption by grade
Very large	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	52	39	36	36	38	43	41	46
Large	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	283	276	293	285	290	320	328	363
Medium	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	304	325	318	293	281	305	318	319
Small	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	49	51	41	36	36	39	42	37
Seconds	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	54	63	64	59	66	68	68	68
Ungraded (farmhouse consumption and direct from producer to egg processor)	⁽⁴⁾—	⁽⁴⁾—	34	40	39	35	34	31	62	45

Human consumption by production method
Laying cages	673	668	664	667	644	578	556	578	595	606
Free range	84	83	88	102	115	122	148	184	210	220
Barn	30	23	23	26	33	43	44	44	53	53

It should be noted that the surveys used to generate these statistics are currently undergoing a methodological review and the estimates for more recent years are liable to amendment as a direct result of any findings.

EU Environment Council

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the matters (a) discussed and (b) decided at the European Environment Ministers Council on 28 and 29 June; what votes were taken; how the UK voted in each case; and if she will place in the Library copies of papers (i) tabled by the UK and (ii) which have implications for United Kingdom policies. [181964]

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Environment Council on 28 to 29 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [181878]

Mr. Morley: I attended the Environment Council on 28 June 2004, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Council reached political agreement on two proposals. The first was an amendment to the Directive concerning the sulphur content of marine fuels, which is intended to lead to a significant reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions from ships operating within member states' waters. The text as adopted would fulfil the obligations of the UK (and other member states) under the recently ratified International Maritime Organisation rules relating to sulphur oxide emission control areas and also includes provision for the use of approved abatement technologies as an alternative to low-sulphur fuel. The proposal was adopted by qualified majority, with UK support.

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1142W

Council also reached political agreement on a revised bathing water directive, with unanimous support. The proposal sets standards for the monitoring and classification of bathing waters. It incorporates a new category of bathing water ('satisfactory/acceptable'), and flexible management arrangements including discounting of samples taken during short-term contamination incidents, within certain limits.

We also discussed a proposed regulation on shipments of waste. Agreement was not reached at this Council, because one member state maintained a general scrutiny reserve, and unanimity was required in the face of a Commission disagreement as Council decided to change the proposed legal base to Article 175. The proposal updates an existing Regulation to reflect revisions to the Basel Convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and their disposal and the relevant OECD decision. Twenty-four member states, including the UK, were able to support the proposal. The dossier will be considered further in COREPER with a view to adoption at a future Council. Council adopted Conclusions relating to the Commission communication "Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste". These were wide-ranging, and included encouragement to the Commission to develop this thematic strategy in tandem with its work on the use of natural resources and integrated product policy.

We held a policy debate on various aspects of the proposed Regulation on registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH). As requested by the Presidency, the UK made only a short intervention, providing further comments in a written paper, a copy of which will be placed in the Library. The Presidency drew the conclusion that work should continue in the ad hoc working group.

Council was asked to agree a decision concerning the placing on the market of a maize product (Zea mays L. line NK603), genetically modified for glyphosate intolerance. The UK supported the Decision, but no

14 Jul 2004 : Column 1143W

qualified majority was attained to either support or reject the proposal.In the absence of a Council decision, the Commission will be able to adopt its proposal.

Council was briefed by the Presidency on the outcome of conferences on biodiversity held in Killarney and Malahide, and a further set of Conclusions was adopted on halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The UK was among a group of member states that successfully pressed for additional points on illegal logging, emphasising the need for urgent action to eliminate imports of illegally harvested timber as a contribution to halting biodiversity loss. Council also discussed the importance of effective financial arrangements to support the Natura 2000 network as an important contribution towards achieving global and regional biodiversity protection. We looked forward to debating the Commission's expected communication on financing Natura 2000.

A further policy debate was held, on the proposed Directive on managing waste from the extractive industries. Again, the UK provided a written submission, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

A number of short information points were raised under Any Other Business. There was also an appeal by Germany, supported by several others, for an early proposal for new Euro V standards with a view to reducing particulate emissions from diesel cars.

Next Section

Index

Home Page