Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Second Report


Seventh Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Illegal Meat Imports (HC 968)

Session 2001-02

Published 23 July 2002

Government Reply

Tenth Special Report (HC 1224)

Session 2001-02

Published 24 October 2002

Recommendation: Although we welcome the trial use of dogs to detect illegal meat imports it would be helpful if the Government were to publish the objectives of the pilot scheme and the criteria against which its success will be judged.

Response: The Department accepts this recommendation and terms of reference are attached at Annex 2 (Tenth Special Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Session 2001-02, HC 1224, p 10)

Recommendation: We accept that there are limitations and problems with the proposals to use x­ray equipment and provide amnesty bins, but we agree with Lord Whitty that both could be valuable in raising public awareness. We therefore recommend that both be carefully piloted and assessed for their efficacy in terms of addressing the problem of illegal meat imports and of raising public awareness of the problem.

Response: The Department agrees. The pros and cons of the use of both are being actively considered with other stakeholders. There is undoubtedly a positive commitment to increase the avenues for travellers to surrender illicit products they have unwittingly brought into the country, but there are concerns, over security in particular, about the use of amnesty bins which need to be addressed before a pilot can commence. In the meantime, the short­term priority will be to improve the use of the red channel in all airports.

A trial of x­ray equipment will be running this autumn.

Defra reported that "the use of detector dogs has been evaluated, and the Government has confirmed that more dogs will be introduced during 2003-04" (Defra, Annual Review of Controls on Imports of Animal Products: April 2002-March 2003, para 1.5).

Defra Comment: Since the Committee's report was produced, anti-smuggling responsibilities have been transferred to HM Customs and Excise. The matters referred to below fall primarily within the remit of Customs. This response has therefore been prepared with Customs

How many dogs are now detecting illegal meat imports?

Following the transfer of responsibility for enforcement controls on illegal imports of products of animal origin to Customs on 11 April 2003, the existing two dogs and their handlers were transferred to Customs on 1 May 2003.

Four additional dogs teams commence training in November. Due to the high demand for training places, this was the earliest date available. The four new dog teams should enter full operational service with Customs in January or February.

These six dogs and their handlers will be used flexibly by Customs throughout the country alongside their strike teams who target smuggling of meat and animal products.

What were the results of the other trials aimed at detecting illegal meat?

Customs have carried out some informal trials of x-ray equipment using existing equipment which show the potential for identifying concealment. The results for specifically identifying organic material have been less conclusive. Customs, however, are in contact with manufacturers, including one which is working with the authorities in New Zealand to monitor development and potential application of new technology. They are yet to identify equipment appropriate for use in the UK with our high passenger numbers and congested major airports.

Customs and Defra are working jointly on a feasibility study into surrender methods (including amnesty bins), to encourage passengers carrying prohibited goods to surrender them before leaving the port or airport. A tendering exercise will begin shortly.

As a result of the trials, what new permanent measures will be put in place at ports and airports to assist in the detection of illegal meat imports?

Funding made available to Customs in 2003-04 is enabling them to introduce four new (and mobile) strike teams in addition to the two existing and four new dog teams.

In addition, Customs (who are now responsible for publicity at major ports of entry and in targeted third countries) have designed new posters. Substantial numbers will be on display at all major ports of entry into the UK from November. New leaflets will replace the current Defra leaflets later in the year. These measures are supported by agreements reached with a number of major airlines to raise awareness amongst passengers on inbound flights by either showing an in-flight video or in-flight announcements.

As the enhanced enforcement and publicity is evaluated, consideration will be given to introducing other measures where appropriate.

* * *

Eighth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Hazardous Waste (HC 919)

Session 2001-02

Published 26 July 2002

Government Reply

Eleventh Special Report (HC 1225)

Session 2001-02

Published 24 October 2002

Recommendation: We recommend as a matter of urgency that the Government formally assesses the risks posed by the landfill of hazardous waste between the date that the ban on co­disposal comes into force and the introduction of the Waste Acceptance Criteria. If, as the Environmental Services Association believes, these risks are unacceptable, contingency plans should be made for that period.

Response: The final decision on the WAC and when to implement them has not yet been taken. Whenever the WAC are introduced, we agree with the Environmental Services Association the changeover from one regime to the other represents a difficult practical problem. We are in discussion with both industry and the Environment Agency on the issue.

If the WAC are not brought in until 2005 or later, hazardous waste disposal by landfill will only be permitted if it poses no unacceptable risk to the environment and human health. The Environment Agency would have to impose appropriate conditions on those sites for that interim period.

Have the Waste Acceptance Criteria now been agreed?

The waste acceptance criteria were agreed in Council in December 2002 and published in the Official Journal in January 2003. A consultation on implementing these requirements in England and Wales is now taking place and this will end on 17 December. Obviously, the final version of the national implementing legislation will depend on the outcome of that consultation, but the consultation document does include a Government preference in those areas where national Governments have a choice.

If so, when will they be implemented? What implications do the criteria have for the landfill of hazardous waste after the ban on co-disposal?

The date for implementing the waste acceptance criteria will depend on the outcome of the consultation. The Government preference set out in the consultation document for hazardous waste is 16 July 2005 going to existing hazardous waste landfill sites. Implementation of the waste acceptance criteria will constitute further progress towards the Government's aim of preventing or reducing as far as possible the negative effects on the environment as well as any resulting risk to human health from landfilling of waste. The Government recognised the potential regulatory and capacity problems that may arise as a result of the ending of co-disposal and these are being addressed both in the consultation document and by the Hazardous Waste Forum. The Forum includes representatives of waste producers, waste management companies, regulators, academia and Government.

* * *

Tenth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,

The Role of Defra (HC 991)

Session 2001-02

Published 14 November 2002

Government Reply:

First Special Report (HC 340)

Session 2002-03

Published 28 January 2003

Recommendation: Putting sustainable development, particularly concern for the environment, at the heart of policy-making is vital. We welcome the fact that Defra has adopted as one of its primary roles the promotion of sustainability. There is no intrinsic reason why taking responsibility for sustainable development and the environment away from the old Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and locating it in Defra should have removed it from the heart of Government - provided that mechanisms are put in place to ensure that Defra is listened to, and that its proposals are acted upon by other Departments. Whether or not those mechanisms will operate effectively is rightly the matter of some concern, a point we return to later in this report.

Response: Defra has been working in a number of different ways to ensure that sustainable development objectives are embedded across government … Defra has also been working on the further roll-out of the integrated Policy Appraisal (IPA) tool across seven government departments and the usefulness of this tool will be evaluated by the in-house policy consultancy maintained by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Department for Transport with the results presented to Ministers in 2003.

Defra also supports the Sustainable Development Commission and it is strongly placed to play a more active role advocating sustainable development across government. Its intrinsic strengths of a broadly-based membership who can draw on practical experience and its greater freedom to comment mean that we see the Commission playing a greater role in future. We are discussing how our tangible support to the Commission's secretariat can reflect this enhanced role.

Have the results of the evaluation of the Integrated Policy Appraisal tool yet been presented to Ministers? If so, what were the findings of the evaluation?

The Integrated Policy Appraisal tool (IPA) was developed to help policy makers assess the full range of social, economic and environmental impacts of their policy proposals and projects. It provides a way of drawing together all the appraisal requirements that Government has committed to as well as helping Departments meet commitments to Better Policy Making and sustainable development.

The Cabinet Sub-Committee, ENV(G) decided in July 2002 that a cross-Whitehall pilot of the IPA would be a useful way of examining whether it had the potential to achieve these aims. The pilot took place between January and May 2003 and was evaluated by a DfT in-house policy consultant. The pilot involved seven Government Departments and one Government Office and covered 13 policies or policy proposals. The results of the pilot will be reported to Ministers later in the year.

What was the outcome of discussions with the Sustainable Development Commission about Defra's support to the Commission's secretariat?

The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) is playing an increasing role in helping Defra to deliver its commitments under the PSA1 on sustainable development. The SDC is especially suited to forging links with other sustainable development related delivery agencies within government. To this end discussions have been held with the SDC secretariat to help strengthen and streamline the support Defra's Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) provides as the sponsoring division.

These discussions have focussed on the practical issues surrounding financing of increased SDC activity; identifying better suited accounting arrangements in support of work plans; liaising with internal Defra directorates in support of the Commission and providing administrative support for the appointment of the SDC Chair and its Commissioners. The SDU sponsorship role also involves financial oversight of the Commission's activities, reviewing the corporate and business planning process and providing advice to the secretariat when required.

---

Recommendation: We recommend that the Government reply in detail to the annual reports of the Countryside Agency on rural proofing, setting out how shortcomings will be put right.

Response: We will consider publishing a response to the Countryside Agency's report on rural proofing, as the Committee recommends.

What was the conclusion of your consideration of our recommendation?

Following consideration by DA(RR) Ministers, it was decided that publishing a formal Government response would not add anything of value to the means already in place for ensuring that recommendations from the Countryside Agency's report are acted upon.

DA(RR) itself, on which Sir Ewen Cameron sits, and its supporting official structures, provides a forum to take forward recommendations and monitor performance. Papers with work programmes are tabled at DA(RR), and work then taken forward outside of it.

As the Agency's reports are annual and well-published, there is a regular opportunity to hold the Government to account publicly if it has failed to respond to anything adequately. Ministers wish to see departmental resources focused on action rather than additional reporting.

---

Recommendation: We recommend that the Department set out its policies for recruiting and retaining staff, to ensure that shortages and turnover are reduced.

Response: As part of work on a Defra pay and workforce strategy for 2003-2006, we will be setting out our policies for recruiting and retaining staff, to ensure that turnover is at an appropriate level.

What are Defra's policies for recruiting and retaining staff? What mechanisms have been put in place to monitor the effectiveness of such policies?

Recruitment into Defra - and the Civil Service generally - is governed by the Civil Service Order in Council 1995. The Order in Council sets out the legal basis for recruitment policies and practice. The fundamental principle is that appointments must be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

The Department has recently formally introduced a competence based recruitment and selection system which seeks to adhere to the modernising Government themes of removing barriers and getting the right people in the right jobs for both themselves and the organisation. This requires candidates to provide evidence as to how they have met (or shown the potential to meet) the competence/skills level required for the post.

Defra has a competence framework on which this system relies. It describes the skills, knowledge and behaviours which everyone needs to be effective in all types of job across the Department. It applies to all staff between Administrative Assistant and Grade 6 (and their equivalents), whatever their role, whether administrative, specialist or technical. Identifying the key characteristics required and describing them in terms which managers, interviewers and applicants can understand, means that selection can focus on how candidates have demonstrated the competences being sought. Selection methods which concentrate on what applicants can do (evidenced by what they have done in the past) and relate this to the job(s) to be filled should reduce the scope for subjective or biased decisions. The Department places considerable importance on leadership skills so for Grade 6 and Grade 7 appointments the Leadership Profile taken from the Senior Management Learning and Development Programme is also used.

This should aid retention - along with a dedicated training and development structure; an Interchange Strategy; well established Defra values that recognise the contributions people make (treating them fairly and equitably) and a pay structure which compares favourably within the Civil Service. Defra's Pay and Workforce Strategy sets out the measures to be taken and the success indicators for the period 2003-2006.

Monitoring the effectiveness of these policies is ongoing. The Management Board receive three monthly updates of Departmental performance in the form of a wide range of information using a Balanced Scorecard approach. This includes HR information incorporating data on staff turnover rates and any recommendations to refine policies. There is also a regular Staff Attitude Survey which contains questions related to morale, motivation and other recruitment and retention indicators. Monitoring the success of the Interchange Programme also features together with regular information from business units about staffing matters which feed into updates to the Pay and Workforce Strategy. More specifically, the new competence based selection system will be reviewed after its first year of operation (at 1 October 2004). Departmental staffing details are published annually in the Departmental Report.

* * *

Ninth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The Future of UK Agriculture in a Changing World (HC 550-I)

Session 2001-02

Published 6 November 2002

Government Reply:

Second Special Report (HC 384)

Session 2002-03

Published 4 February 2003

Recommendation: We welcome the establishment of the Chief Scientific Adviser's Group. Arrangements concerning the role of the group should form part of the future contingency plans.

Response: The Government's Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) has established a Science Advisory Group. The inaugural meeting of the group took place on October 2002…The Group will be replaced within 12 months by a Scientific Advisory Council which will be established as an advisory Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPB).

What arrangements have been made to prepare for the replacement of the Science Advisory Group by the new advisory NDPB?

Advertisements for the Chair and members of the new Science Advisory Council were widely posted in July 2003. The closing date for receipt of applications was 30th September 2003. During this period, there were more than 1000 expressions of interest, resulting in the receipt of 275 completed applications.

All applications were considered in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments regulations. A short-list of 25 will be interviewed for the posts of Chair or member in mid November 2003 and recommendations on appointments then made to ministers. We hope that the membership of the Science Advisory Council will be announced in December 2003, following Ministerial approval.

The Science Advisory Group will be wound up just as soon as the Science Advisory Council is established.

* * *

First report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (HC 110)

Session 2002-03

Published 28 November 2002

Government reply:

Third Special Report (HC 478)

Session 2002-03

Published 4 March 2003

Recommendation: We welcome the proposal that technological monitoring measures such as satellite monitoring and electronic logbooks should be more widely adopted. That said, we recommend that the Government accepts that installation of them should be funded either by the United Kingdom or the European Union, so that British Fishermen can install them on the same basis as their European competitors.

Response: The Government supports these developments and grant aid will be made available under the fisheries structural fund, FIFG (Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) towards the cost of satellite position monitoring terminals on fishing vessels between 15 and 24 metres.

What has been the impact of making grant aid available in the way described?

It is too early to make an assessment of the impact of financial assistance towards the cost of installing satellite position monitoring terminals on UK fishing vessels between 15 and 25 metres. No terminals have been installed so far because detailed rules for satellite-based vessel monitoring systems were only agreed by the European Commission at the beginning of October 2003. Guidance on how to proceed is now being prepared for the UK industry and will be issued shortly.

* * *

Third Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Session 2002-03

The Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (HC 151)

Published 21 January 2003-09-12

Government Reply:

Fourth Special Report (HC 615)

Session 2002-03

Published 8 April 2003

The Committee would be grateful for a general update on negotiations about the details of CAP reform.

General update

On 26 June EU Agriculture Ministers agreed a major reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which provides for a substantial shift of EU support from production to a wider range of rural and environmental activities. The key points are:

-  breaking the link between farm subsidies and production in order to reconnect farmers to their markets, reduce damaging environmental impacts and reduce bureaucracy: this is at the heart of our approach to sustainable food and farming;

-  national envelopes which will allow us to develop targeted schemes to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly farming;

-  cross compliance to make subsidies dependent on meeting standards in key areas like environment, and animal health and welfare;

-  modulation, for the first time on an EU wide basis, switching support from production subsidies to targeted support for environmental and rural development objectives; we have secured an increase in the size of that switch, and in the size of the UK share of the funds available from modulation;

-  support prices for butter, and rice are reduced, bringing them closer to world prices to the benefit of consumers;

-  there is a new financial discipline which will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure looks to be in danger of exceeding the agreed ceilings.

We have gone further than the Commission's January 2003 proposals in key areas:

-  we have secured a further switch to the second pillar which now starts earlier and is over a third larger than the January proposal. The final deal starts earlier than the January proposal (2005 instead of 2006) and at a higher rate in the earlier years (4% in 2006 instead of 1%), and will move €9 billion to rural development over the period to 2013, not just the €e6.6 billion initially proposed;

-  we have succeeded in protecting UK farmers from the immediate threat of an unfair settlement as part of the financial discipline process.

We met our main objectives. This was a good outcome which takes forward our strategy to provide a sustainable basis for EU agriculture:

-  overall these reforms will allow us to secure EU funding to help deliver the entry level agri-environment scheme recommended by the Curry Commission;

-  it sends a strong message to our negotiating partners in the WTO that the Community has made a real effort towards a positive outcome to the agriculture trade negotiations;

-  it will help remove some of the distortions on world markets caused by the CAP, and should improve the trading position of - e.g. - developing countries; and it ends a difficult period of uncertainty for farmers allowing them to start to plan the future of their businesses, knowing what the regulatory framework will be.

For the first time, the bulk of farm subsidy will not be dependent on what or how much a farmer produces - a crucial change. Farmers will be free to produce what they, as business people, judge the market wants. For example, cut back production, and their costs, and focus on a smaller volume of higher quality produce. Or diversify into other products, where there might be higher returns. In addition, several bureaucratic subsidy regimes will be swept up into the new reformed single payment system, cutting red tape for farmers. And there are clear environmental benefits: the incentive to overstock and intensify is removed; through cross-compliance, the new subsidy will be linked to the protection of habitats, water and soil; and we can expect an increase in the area of fallow land and in the take up of agri-environment schemes.

Also, for the first time, "modulation" applies on an EU-wide basis, switching support from production subsidies to targeted support for environmental and rural development objectives. We're ahead of the game in the EU and we'll be able to modulate at a higher rate to fund our sustainable food and farming agenda.

Ministers have decided to introduce the reformed scheme in the UK from the earliest possible date - January 2005 - and to devolve decisions to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where there is the option of doing so. We held public consultations at key stages of the reform negotiation process including a consultation that ended on 24 October 2003 on how we should implement the reforms. We will consult further over the winter and spring 2004 on the detailed implementing regulations.

June's CAP reform agreement put the EU on a strong footing on agriculture at Cancun and many felt a deal was close - agriculture was not the cause of the breakdown. The setback at Cancun will not hinder the CAP reform process in Europe - indeed legislation setting the June agreement in stone was agreed by Agriculture Ministers on 29 September and at the same time the Commission published proposals for reforming the sectors which weren't covered by the June agreement - sugar, cotton, olive oil, tobacco and hops.

On sugar, the Commission have published a discussion paper with three options for reform - status quo, cuts in price support, and full liberalisation. The UK Government view is that there is a strong case for early progress towards a market-driven, simplified and deregulated approach in line with the June 2003 decisions. In so doing, we will need to take account of the legitimate interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and least developed countries which currently benefit from preferential trade arrangements with the EU. Commissioner Fischler has told the European Parliament that he wants a political debate on possible ways ahead and does not envisage tabling any actual proposals on sugar until mid 2004.

The UK supports the Commission's proposals for full decoupling of the tobacco and hops regimes. For tobacco it will mean the end of the specific subsidy of this harmful product.

On olive oil and cotton, the Commission propose 60% decoupling of subsidy (with the option of 100% for cotton). The UK will be pressing for a greater decoupled element. For tobacco, olive oil, hops and cotton, following an orientation debate in October, the Commission aim in November to present formal legislative proposals for negotiation and there is likely to be pressure to secure agreement by next spring.

* * *

Fifth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (HC 394)

Session 2002-03

Published 18 March 2003

Government Reply

Fifth Special Report (HC 748)

Session 2002-03

Published 10 June 2003

Recommendation: We welcome the commitment to improve practice in mapping the other regions, and the new procedures adopted by the Countryside Agency. We trust that there will prove an adequate response to the earlier problems, and that the original target for completion of the exercise will be met.

Response: The Government and the Agency will work closely together to ensure that the necessary funding is made available to allow the completion of the mapping project to timetable.

Is the mapping project currently on schedule? If not, what steps are being taken to improve the situation?

Yes. The mapping project is on schedule. The last of the eight draft maps showing open country and registered common land for East England was published on 2 September 2003.

---

Recommendation: We urge the Department to finalise its proposals relating to restrictions as soon as possible.

Response: The Government intends to lay regulations before the House very soon.

Have regulations been laid?

The Government laid the Access to the Countryside (Exclusions and Restrictions)(England) Regulations 2003 before Parliament on 24 October 2003. The Regulations entered into force on 17 November 2003.

---

Recommendation: It is not clear that any additional funds have been made available to local highway authorities to exercise their new powers under the Act in relation to newly-created open-access land. We urge the Department to clarify how it expects the additional costs of using these powers to be met.

Response: We intend to provide guidance to local authorities on these new powers before the end of 2003.

Has such guidance been provided? If not, when will it be given?

The Government issued guidance on 22 July 2003 setting out the role of access authorities in relation to their functions under Part I of the Act. We intend to issue further specific guidance on the discharge of access authorities' functions in time for regional commencement, starting in the summer 2004.

---

Recommendation: We are concerned that the Countryside Agency and the Department do not yet appear to have reached agreement on how the facilitation of new rights of access should be funded.

Response: The Government and the Agency are working closely with partners to look at what is needed to manage the new right of access and what existing funding streams are available. Once we have completed that work and identified whether or not there is a gap, we will jointly consider how to meet any requirements.

What progress has been made?

The Government is keen to ensure that the new right of access is implemented as smoothly as possible on the ground and understands the calls for the establishment of a national grant scheme made particularly by the Country Land and Business Association, National Farmers' Union and the Ramblers' Association. We need to be sure that any such scheme is affordable, that it will not involve any relaxation in the efforts of all concerned to fulfil their existing responsibilities and that it will deliver full value for money in respect of any additional expenditure.

The Government is currently looking at proposals which the Countryside Agency has put forward. We expect to make a decision shortly.

* * *


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 21 January 2004