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.
* * *
|