| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Feb 2007 : Column 166W—continued
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Agriculture
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the economic value of unpaid family labour to the farming industry. [119682]
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 8 February 2007]: The latest estimate of “Total Income from Farming” (TIFF), published on 31 January, was £2.72 billion for 2006. TIFF represents business profits plus remuneration for work done by owners and other unpaid workers. An estimate is not separately made for family workers.
Forced Labour
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what account his Department takes of the use of forced labour in the farming of imported food, with particular reference to the possible role of trafficked children in harvesting cocoa beans; and if he will make a statement. [118040]
Barry Gardiner: The Government are committed to the elimination of trafficking and child labour in all countries and for all purposes—including the possible role of trafficked children in harvesting cocoa beans. Through our links with PROBA (EU Working Party on Commodities), we encourage the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO) work on improving long-term and sustainable economies in cocoa-producing countries. This includes strengthening institutional capacity to address forced labour and the worst forms of child labour. It is critical that the underlying poverty that is at the root of trafficking and child labour is tackled. Stopping child labour without ensuring alternative income for the family or appropriate, good quality education opportunities for the children is likely to be ineffective and may drive children into more hidden and harmful jobs.
The Government have a strong commitment to ratification and enforcement of international human rights standards: the UK has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Labour
Organisation (ILO) Convention 138 on the minimum age for employment and ILO Convention 182 on the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and encourages other countries to ratify and conform to these Conventions. DFID is a major supporter of the ILO, including its International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) and the Special Programme for the Elimination of Forced Labour (SAP-FL).
Agriculture: Subsidies
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of preparations to deliver single farm payments for 2006-07; and if he will make a statement. [118251]
Barry Gardiner: The position remains as set out in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 7 November 2006, Official Report, column 715.
Geraldine Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether any payments have been made under the single payment scheme for Ireby Fell, Lancashire. [118548]
Barry Gardiner: Detailed analysis of all the payments made under the 2005 single payment scheme is not yet available. Once the remaining 2005 scheme payments have been completed, a decision will be taken on the level of detail that will be published.
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will publish the 50 largest single farm payments made by 31 January 2007 in relation to applications made in 2005. [119028]
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 6 February 2007]: Detailed analysis of all the payments made under the 2005 single payment scheme is not yet available. Once the remaining 2005 scheme payments have been completed, a decision will be taken on the level of detail that will be published.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2006, Official Report, column 221W, on the Single Payment Scheme, what the average length of time taken by the Rural Payments Agency was to validate English land details on applications received from Scottish area offices for the application periods (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. [119330]
Barry Gardiner: Figures on the average time taken to process an English application are currently not available for 2005. This is owing to the task-based approach that was adopted during the first year of the scheme. As such, progress was monitored against the total number of outstanding tasks, rather than the number of individual claims fully validated.
For 2006 a ‘whole case’ approach has been adopted and current figures show a marked increase in the number of claims paid, compared to this time last year.
As processing still continues meaningful averages of the time taken to fully validate a cross-border claim are not yet available.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2006, Official Report, column 221W, on the Single Payment Scheme, how many Single Payment Scheme applications have been received by the Rural Payments Agency from (a) farmers with cross-border holdings in England and Scotland where most of the land lies in England and (b) Scottish area offices for validation of applications from farmers with cross-border holdings in England and Scotland where most of the land lies in Scotland in (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006. [119331]
Barry Gardiner: The information requested is given as follows:
(a) RPA records show that in 2005 66 farmers with land in Scotland submitted a claim to England as the majority of the land was situated in England. In the 2006 scheme year this figure reduced to 63 farmers.
(b) RPA records show that in 2005 74 farmers with land in England submitted a claim to Scotland as the majority of the land was situated in Scotland. In the 2006 scheme year this figure increased to 79 farmers.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2006, Official Report, column 221W, on the Single Payment Scheme, how many applications sent to the Rural Payments Agency from Scottish area offices for validation of English land details were outstanding at 1 July 2006; how many of these have now been processed; and what the total value is of interest paid on these claims due to late processing. [119332]
Barry Gardiner: Entitlement data for 31 cases were issued to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department prior to 31 July 2006 leaving 43 outstanding at that time which required re-calculation in order to correct some inaccuracies associated with the historical data. To date 59 cases have been issued to SEERAD for incorporation into the single payment, leaving 15 cases outstanding.
SEERAD has confirmed that the value of any interest payments associated with late SPS payments in cases where they are the responsible paying agency is still being calculated and these figures are not available at this time.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 5 December 2006, Official Report, column 221W, on the Single Payment Scheme, what the average length of time taken was (a) by the Rural Payments Agency to pass a claim to Scotland for validation of Scottish land details, (b) by a Scottish area office to validate Scottish land details and process the application and (c) to process the entire claim in respect of claims made by farmers with cross-border holdings in England and Scotland where most of the land lies in England in (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006. [119333]
Barry Gardiner: The information requested is given as follows:
(a) It is not possible to provide an average length of time taken by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to pass a Single Payment Scheme (SPS) claim to Scotland for validation of Scottish land details as 2005 Scottish claims received at RPA were sent to SEERAD during August 2005 as part of a bulk exchange. This exercise was repeated for the 2006 SPS scheme year.
(b) The Scottish Executive has informed RPA that the time taken by a Scottish area office to validate Scottish land details and process the application is not held in a manner that would allow the question to be answered.
(c) Figures on the average time taken to process an English application are currently not available for 2005. This is owing to the task-based approach that was adopted during the first year of the scheme. As such, progress was monitored against the total number of outstanding tasks rather than the number of individual claims fully validated.
For 2006 a ‘whole case’ approach has been adopted and current figures show a marked increase in the number of claims paid compared with this time last year. As processing still continues meaningful averages of the time taken to fully validate a cross-border claim are not yet available.
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used to determine whether areas are accepted as having Higher Level Stewardship status; if he will commission research into the consistency with which evidence is collected and assessed against those criteria; and if he will make a statement. [120725]
Barry Gardiner: Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) is open to all farmers in England. HLS is a competitive scheme which aims to deliver significant environmental outcomes in high priority situations and areas. The key characteristics of the different parts of the English countryside have been outlined in over 150 Joint Character Areas. Each area has priority targets for the management of a variety of features and HLS applications are scored directly against these targets. Those applications which meet or exceed a pre-determined regional threshold may be offered an agreement. It therefore follows that applications which address the relevant priority targets for their area have the greatest likelihood of approval.
Targeting of HLS is due to be reviewed in association with national and regional stakeholders later this year, taking account of an independent evaluation of Environmental Stewardship as a whole which we have already commissioned.
Air Pollution
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the carbon emissions generated by the electricity requirements of Christmas lights; and if he will make a statement. [119498]
Ian Pearson: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister for Science and Innovation on 15 January 2007, Official Report, column 807W.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria are used by his Department in selecting companies providing carbon offsetting services; and if he will make a statement. [119405]
Barry Gardiner: DEFRA acts as co-ordinator for the cross-Whitehall Government Carbon Offsetting Fund (GCOF). In August 2006 an open Official Journal of the European Union tender was issued for a company to deliver the emission reductions required to fulfil Government’s carbon offsetting requirements via the GCOF. The tender specified that the following offsetting project criteria were required:
1. All offsetting projects are Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects
2. Project activities are limited to small-scale renewable energy and or energy efficiency projects
3. All projects have strong sustainable development benefits. These include environmental, social, economic and technological benefits.
The GCOF tender also required:
1. Delivery of 255,000 Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) by April 2009, with a delayed option to purchase a further 50,000.
2. A price per CER fixed for the duration of the contract.
The tendering process concluded with the selection of EEA Fund Management, announced on 28 December 2006.
Animal Welfare: EC Law
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of EC Council Regulations 1/2005 on (a) county shows, (b) horse trials, (c) dog shows and (d) other animal fairs; [119259]
(2) for which groups exceptions will be made under EC Council Regulations 1/2005; and if he will make a statement. [119260]
Mr. Bradshaw: Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005, on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, applies to the transport of live vertebrate animals that takes place in connection with an economic activity. The term ‘economic activity’ is not defined in the regulation but my Department has provided a view on its meaning in guidance.
In this guidance, we have taken the view that the regulation applies to animals transported as part of a business or commercial activity that aims to achieve financial gain, whether direct or indirect, for any person or company involved in the transport.
The guidance also makes it clear that we do not consider economic activity to include those who attend events such as county shows, horse trials, dog shows or other animal fairs as a hobby, that is for pleasure or competition rather than as a part of a business. The impact of the regulation on such events should not therefore be significant.
Animals: Disease Control
Bill Wiggin:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mobile incinerators he has available to incinerate
animals for the purposes of disease control; and if he will make a statement. [120582]
Mr. Bradshaw: None. Most mobile incinerators have a very limited capacity and are only approved to process less than 50 kilograms per hour and require a site specific licence. They are, therefore, not considered to be a viable disposal solution for most infected premises.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what biosecurity measures are in place for the transportation of animals culled for the purposes of disease control; [120584]
(2) what his Department's policy is on transporting animals culled for disease control; and if he will make a statement. [120583]
Mr. Bradshaw: Strict biosecurity measures are in place for the transportation of animals culled for disease control purposes.
With regards to the recent outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza in Suffolk, carcasses were transported in sealed, leak-proof lorries, fully covered with securely fixed top covers or tarpaulins, to a plant in Staffordshire where they were rendered.
A number of measures were taken prior to the lorries leaving the infected premises to ensure that trucks were not overfilled and leaks did not occur. Prior to use, each vehicle is leak tested and visually inspected for defects. Before being licensed off the site, the external surfaces of the vehicle were sprayed down with an approved disinfectant as a further biosecurity measure. Each batch of trucks was also accompanied by an escort to ensure that the trucks did not leak, that material did not fall from the vehicle and that, in the unlikely event of an accident or incident involving the vehicle, measures could be taken to protect human and animal health and the environment.
Drivers carried a certificate of leak-testing and a transport incident record card which detailed the actions to be taken in the event of an accident or incident.
Avian Influenza
Mr. Jamie Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance his Department is issuing to local government to assist measures to prevent the spread of the H5N1 virus. [119954]
Mr. Bradshaw: My Department works closely with the Local Authority Coordination of Regulatory Services (LACORS), the State Veterinary Service (SVS) and other operational partners to ensure effective preparedness for an outbreak of avian influenza.
Local authorities (both trading standards and emergency planners) have close working relationships with LACORS and their local SVS offices on an ongoing basis, which provide mutual support and guidance where required.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |