|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The countryside stewardship scheme closed to new applications in 2004 with the introduction of the environmental stewardship scheme. Existing agreements will continue until they expire. The last agreements will expire in 2013.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many agreements providing public access there were in each agreement year since the countryside stewardship scheme's inception; and how many such agreements applied to land within two miles of (a) an urban area and (b) the coast in each year. 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to how many hectares of land agreements under the countryside stewardship scheme which provided public access applied in each agreement year since the scheme's inception; and how many such agreements applied to land within two miles of (a) an urban area and (b) the coast in each year. 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been provided under the countryside stewardship scheme for (a) all agreements providing public access, (b) all agreements providing public access within two miles of an urban area and (c) all agreements providing public access within two miles of the coast in each agreement year since the scheme's inception; and how much such funding is planned to be provided in each future agreement year. 
Barry Gardiner: Data is only available from 1998. The amount of funding that has been provided under the countryside stewardship scheme for all agreements providing public access since 1998 is as follows:
Public access is only one of the objectives of the scheme. As funding will be allocated to the scheme as a whole rather than to individual objectives, it is not possible to confirm how much funding will be provided for public access specifically in future years. However, funding of existing agreements will continue until the end of their 10-year life-spans.
Mr. Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will list the criminal offences created in legislation sponsored by his Department since April 2005, broken down by Act. 
Barry Gardiner: A comprehensive and exhaustive list of new offences created in all legislation sponsored by Defra since April 2005 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Much of the legislation is subordinate and regulatory in nature: some new offences have been created, some offences have been repealed and re-enacted; most of the offences relate to breach of the regulations or obstruction of officers enforcing the regulations. Many of the offence provisions relate to emergency legislation arising from the threat of avian influenza.
nuisance parking which is the selling or repairing of vehicles on a road by persons in business;
breach of dog control orders: in relation to specified land such orders may exclude dogs from the land, prohibit the fouling of the land, require dogs to be kept on leads when on the land or limit the number of dogs a person may take onto the specified land;
in relation to certain premises in an Alarm Notification Area Part 7 of the Act created the offence of failing to nominate a key-holder where an audible intruder alarm is present.
possession without reasonable excuse of certain pesticides harmful to wildlife (section 43);
interfering with the vacated nests of certain birds such as the golden eagle and the osprey which habitually re-use their nests (section 47);
selling any live captive-bred wild bird which has been lawfully released into the wild as part of a re-population or re-introduction programme (section 48);
in relation to certain invasive non-native species such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed, selling any animal or plant, or eggs or seeds thereof (section 50);
interfering with Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in various ways including interfering with the notices or signs relating to an SSSI.
David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 24 May 2006, Official Report, column 1818W, on the Departmental Budget, what the reason was for the change in the amount spent on advertising in 2005-06 from the amount in 2004-05. 
Barry Gardiner: Media expenditure reverted back to realistic levels in 2004-05, and 2005-06. Centralised media expenditure in 2003-04 was noticeably less than previous and recent years, and reflected an uncharacteristic dip in total communications expenditure for that year. Defra underwent significant structural changes in 2003-04 which was the main reason for the temporary decline in expenditure, including:
Changes in managing statutory notice advertising, which accounts for 83 per cent. of annual media spend. The change in process, and handover between agencies was reflected in minimal levels in advertising activity.
Defra's branding being finalised during 2003-04. This impacted on advertising expenditure, as it is usual practice that when any brand is under review or under development, advertising activity is minimised or even put on hold.
Barry Gardiner: Defra, in recognising that as employers and service provider to the public they are subject to the duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, has previously undertaken extensive surveys and embarked upon improvement works in locations where the public have access to ensure compliance with the regulations. While the principle of reasonable adjustment is fundamental to the Act, Defra has adopted a proactive approach as is practicable.
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Department's policy is on whether doctors, veterinarians and farmers (a) are operators under the environmental liability directive and (b) would consequently be considered liable for the remediation costs of environmental harm if it arose from their use of genetically modified vaccines, crops or other organisms unless UK implementing regulations define the operator otherwise. 
Ian Pearson: The definition of operator in the environmental liability directive suggests that all occupational activities (including doctors, veterinarians and farmers) fall within the scope of the directive. The Government cannot amend the definition to exclude specific occupational activities. The extent to which the specific occupations referred to attract liabilitywhether strict or faultunder the directive will depend on the precise nature of the activities they undertake and the circumstances in which those activities are undertaken.
In respect of strict liability, genetically modified organisms fall within the scope of the directive and genetically modified vaccines may do so by virtue of the provisions relating to dangerous substances. All genetically modified substances which do not fall within the strict liability provisions of the directive would in any case fall within the fault-based liability provisions in respect of damage to EU- protected biodiversity.
Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in (a) dairy farming, (b) beef farming, (c) sheep farming, (d) arable farming, (e) mixed farming and (f) other forms of farming in Cumbria in (i) 1990, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2005. 
|Farm type||Employees||Total labour||Employees||Total labour||Employees||Total labour|
|(1 )Indicates data withheld on order to prevent the disclosure of individual holding data, in accordance with the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979. Notes: 1. Total employees include full and part-time regular workers, salaried managers and casual workers. 2. Total labour force included all employees plus farmers, partners, directors and their spouses if working on the holding. 3. Figures for 1995 refer to main holdings only. Figures for 2000 and 2005 include all holdings. Source: June Agricultural Survey.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|