| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Mar 2007 : Column 586W—continued
In addition to the meetings disclosed, he also had a number of other internal meetings with officials.
Departments: Orders and Regulations
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his most recent estimate is of the (a) one-off cost and (b) recurring cost of implementing the Detergents Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2469) to (i) businesses and (ii) the regulators. [126644]
Ian Pearson: A Regulatory Impact Assessment carried out before the introduction of the Detergents Regulations 2005 estimated that the total one-off compliance costs would be between £8.4 million and £14 million based on compliance testing of 2,800 surfactants. Given the long lead in for these regulations, the costs of additional labelling requirements fell within normal business running costs which were assisted by a six month transition period after the regulations came into force.
As there is relatively little industry development of new surfactants for use in the detergents industry, recurring compliance testing costs are nominal. There are no one-off or recurring administrative costs and no costs to the regulators. These regulations ensure that detergents degrade quickly ensuring high standards of environmental protection.
DEFRA is committed to regulating better and has a target of a 25 per cent. reduction in administrative burdens. The implementation of a more risk based approach to regulation, in conjunction with tougher penalties combined with improved effectiveness via focus on outcomes, and simplification where possible, is fully consistent with this.
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the (a) one-off cost and (b) ongoing costs of implementing the Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (England) Regulations 2004 to (i) businesses and (ii) the regulators. [126659]
Ian Pearson: A full Regulatory Impact Assessment was published alongside the Genetically Modified Organisms (Traceability and Labelling) (England) Regulations 2004. Copies were made available in the Library of the House. It is also available from the DEFRA website at:
Tony Baldry:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his most recent estimate is of the (a) one-off cost and (b) recurring costs of implementing the Water
Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 to (i) businesses and (ii) the regulators. [126665]
Ian Pearson: The most recent estimate of the costs of implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) were published in the Final Regulatory Impact Assessment (2004). The cost of compliance that could be quantified at that stage amounted to be between £450 million and £630 million per annum. The RIA also assessed the cost of implementation for the Environment Agency to be £7 million per annum
Benefits that could be quantified and valued appeared to be in the region of £560 million per annum. Given the range of benefits which have not been quantified this is considered to be an underestimate and represents a relatively small proportion of the estimated damages that may be avoided.
A revision of the overall RIA for WFD implementation is planned for 2007.
DEFRA is committed to regulating better and has a target of a 25 per cent. reduction in administrative burdens. The implementation of a more risk based approach to regulation, in conjunction with tougher penalties combined with improved effectiveness via focus on outcomes, and simplification where possible, is fully consistent with this.
Departments: Travel
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many miles were travelled by his Department’s (a) Ministers and (b) officials on Government business by (i) air, (ii) rail and (iii) road in 2006. [124522]
Barry Gardiner: Information held centrally on miles travelled by Ministers and officials on Government business by air, rail and road in 2006 is as follows:
| Mileage by travel mode | ||
| Ministers | Officials | |
| (1) Not held centrally. (2) Mileage available from 1 April to 31 December 2006, where travel is booked on departmental contracts. Data for the first quarter of the year is not available | ||
All travel is undertaken in accordance with the Ministerial Code, Travel by Ministers and the Civil Service Management Code.
Vehicle mileage is reported by financial year. DEFRA officials drove 8,930,363 miles on Government business in financial year 2005-06. Mileage collation for financial year 2006-07 will be available in June 2007.
Diesel Fuel: Agriculture
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many people were charged with using illegal red diesel in (a) England and (b) Lancashire in each of the last 10 years; [124907]
(2) how many farmers were charged with the illegal use of red diesel for non-agricultural use in (a) England and (b) Lancashire in each of the last 10 years. [124908]
John Healey: I have been asked to reply.
The number of people convicted in relation to hydrocarbon oils fraud in mainland Great Britain is available in the HMRC annual report, and is shown in the following table. The 2006-07 figure will be reported in annual report later this year. The occupation of the people convicted is not reported.
| Number of people convicted in Great Britain | |
Electronic Tagging: Sheep
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the generic animal number format for electronic identification for sheep; [127262]
(2) how many unique animal numbers for sheep will be available for the UK under plans to introduce electronic identification for sheep. [127263]
Mr. Bradshaw: EU Council Regulation 21/2004 requires the code structure of electronic identification (EID) transponders to be compliant with International Standards Organisation (ISO) standard 11784. This provides for a 12 digit binary number (the highest number being 274,877,906,043) to be used to identify each animal. However, this range of numbers is not available for sheep alone. The ISO code structure applies to all animals which may be electronically identified so we therefore need to build a way to identify each species into the numbering sequence.
We have yet to decide on what numbering system we will adopt should EID be introduced. Discussions with the devolved Governments and interested organisations in England are ongoing.
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects the European Commission to publish their implementation report on electronic identification for sheep. [127266]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Commission’s implementation report on electronic identification for sheep is expected to be available this spring.
Energy: Business
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the take-up is of the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Management Programme in each region. [127204]
Mr. Bradshaw:
The Business Resource Efficiency and Waste (BREW) Programme is returning £284 million
raised from the landfill tax escalator back to business between 2005 and 2008 to improve their resource efficiency and to minimise the levels of waste that are unnecessarily sent to landfill.
A portion of the funding is delivered through the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), in order to co-ordinate delivery of the BREW Programme measures at the regional level, and to carry out regionally specific projects. In 2005-06, £5 million was awarded to the RDAs for the first purpose only, with £11.71 million provided for both purposes in 2006-07.
The majority of BREW funding is awarded to a series of national delivery bodies, including Envirowise, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, the Environment Agency, the National Industrial Symbiosis Programme and the Carbon Trust. DEFRA does not hold a breakdown of how this funding is spent at a regional level.
Exhaust Emissions: Aviation
Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the carbon emissions were of international flights to and from the UK in each of the last five years; [126454]
(2) what the levels of carbon dioxide emissions were from internal domestic flights in the UK in each of the last five years; [126455]
(3) what the level of carbon emissions was from the aviation industry in each of the last five years. [126458]
Ian Pearson: The following table shows emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic UK flights, international flights leaving UK airports and total emissions from all UK aviation, in million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) in each year from 2000 to 2005. Emissions from flights arriving in the UK are not estimated.
| Emissions from domestic aviation | Emissions from international aviation from UK( 1) | Total emissions from domestic and international aviation | |
| (1) Definition of the UK excludes UK overseas territories. | |||
International aviation is reported as an information item in the UK greenhouse gas inventory but does not, by international agreement, count towards national totals under the Kyoto Protocol.
The impact of aviation on climate change is not limited to CO2 emissions. Although there is need for further research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that the total climate change impact of aviation is between two and four times greater than that of its CO2 emissions alone.
Exhaust Emissions: Shipping
Mr. Salmond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the carbon
emissions were of the naval shipping industry in each of the last five years. [126453]
Ian Pearson: The emissions of a particular industry can be explained only on an end user basis, not a source basis. To calculate emissions from the Naval shipping industry one would have to look at such things as the steel and other materials used, the electricity used etc. and work out what the carbon cost of those are. The UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, which is required by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, does not collect emissions data on this basis.
Farms: Lancashire
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department plans to allocate to farmers in Lancashire to improve the environmental sustainability of farms. [126600]
Barry Gardiner: Environmental Stewardship (ES) is the current main funding mechanism by which land managers are encouraged to deliver effective environmental management on their land. Budgets for the schemes operating under ES (Entry Level Stewardship, Organic Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship) are allocated by region, rather than by county. However, in Lancashire there is already a commitment to pay £2,392,757 annually to agreement holders under these schemes. The hon. Member may also wish to note that under the predecessor scheme to ES, Countryside Stewardship, the annual commitment for 2007 in Lancashire is £2,359,098.
We are unable to confirm the regional budgets for ES until we receive approval of the new Rural Development Programme for England (2007 -13) from the European Commission. Negotiations over the final funding package, including the question of voluntary modulation, are continuing. However, in advance of formal approval we are keeping ES open to new applications. Agreements entered into since 1 January 2007 are provisional and are being funded from existing indicative budgets agreed when the scheme was launched.
Flood Control
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes were assessed to be at significant risk of flooding, defined as >1.3 per cent. probability, in (a) 2003, (b) 2004, (c) 2005 and (d) 2006. [123651]
Ian Pearson: The figures for properties in England identified as being at significant risk of flooding (defined as a probability of flooding in any one year greater than 1.3 per cent. or one in 75) from the Environment Agency's national flood risk assessments are:
2003: no assessment undertaken;
2004: 315,000 properties, with subsequent analysis indicating that approximately 285,000 were residential;
2005: 517,000 properties, but the assessment did not differentiate between residential and commercial;
2006: 469,000 properties of which approximately 393,000 are residential.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my answer of 28 February 2007, Official Report, column 1328W, in which the figure for the 2004 assessment of properties at significant risk related to residential properties only, while all other figures related to residential and commercial properties.
It should also be noted that the differences between assessments are almost entirely due to changes in data and analysis techniques as opposed to the actual flood risk, for example the number of properties within the floodplain for which no result is available has fallen dramatically from 265,000 in 2004 to 28,000 in 2006. This represents an improvement in the analysis but leads to a commensurate increase in the number of properties in each risk band
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |