|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to seek to end the support available under the Common Agricultural Policy to farms that breed and supply bulls for bull-fighting purposes. 
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his most recent estimate is of the amount of UK chlorofluorocarbon emissions from each source; what steps his Department is taking to reduce each of these sources; and if he will make a statement. 
Ian Pearson [holding answer 27 March 2007]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for Science and Innovation, Department of Trade and Industry, on 19 March 2007, Official R eport, column 629W, on phase out of remaining specialised uses of chlorofluorocarbons in the UK.
The most recent estimates of UK emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the UK conclude that emissions have been decreasing since 1995. For example, emissions of CFC-11 dropped from 2.3 kilotonnes per year in 1995 to 0.6 kilotonnes per year. Similarly, emissions of CFC-12 and CFC-113 have dropped from 3.6 and 1.1 kilotonnes per year in 1995 to 0.5 and 0.2 kilotonnes per year in 2006, respectively.
This is consistent with global trends of emissions of CFCs following the ban in the developed world on production and consumption of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol since 1996, apart from exempt specialised uses agreed by the Parties.
Estimates of UK CFC emissions by source are not available. The most significant source of emissions is
likely to be from historic disposal to landfill sites of equipment containing CFCs.
DEFRA has established continuous observations of CFCs (and other trace gases) at the Mace Head Atmospheric Research Station on the Atlantic Ocean coastline of Ireland. The Met Office uses the observations to estimate the magnitude and spatial distribution of the European emissions. Detailed information on CFC emissions can be found in Manning et al (2003), Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 4405.
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) is spent by the Government on actions to combat climate change; whether he plans to increase spending to the 1 per cent. of GDP recommended by the Stern Review; and if he will make a statement. 
Ian Pearson [holding answer 14 March 2007]: The Stern Review suggests that taking action to mitigate climate changeby aiming for a stabilisation goal of around 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent or lowerwill cost a total of 1 per cent. of GDP across the world by 2050. However, Stern does not recommend that this estimated 1 per cent. of GDP should come from Government expenditure; nor does he suggest that every country should directly spend 1 per cent. of their GDP on measures to combat climate changesome countries will have higher costs than others.
Sterns estimate reflects the likely costs under a timely, flexible, global policy, employing a variety of economic instruments to control emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases. Stern advocates action on three fronts:
1. To create a global price for carbon;
2. To provide finance for technology research, development and deployment; and
3. To take action to change behaviourincluding encouraging energy efficiency and reduced deforestation, where there are many cheap abatement opportunities, some that even save money.
Therefore Stern recommends action by Government to ensure that the private sector faces clear long-term price signals and incentives to ensure low-carbon economies, for example by establishing cap and trade schemes, as well as some level of Government expenditure to bring forward low-carbon technology and tackle market failures. Using only Government expenditure as the sole means of delivering reductions in emissions is likely to impose greater burdens on economies than the alternatives, and if the signals are not clear enough, or we delay action, the costs could be significantly higher.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions
he has had with ministerial colleagues in other departments on the contribution that providing access to the coast for leisure activities makes to (a) supporting coastal economies, (b) reducing obesity and (c) reducing carbon emissions by encouraging people to take holidays in the UK rather than overseas. 
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that long-term regional strategies are in place to improve coastal flood management to take account of climate change risks; and how much he has allocated to such strategies in each of the next three years. 
Ian Pearson: Since the 1990s DEFRA and its predecessors have encouraged coastal defence authorities to produce shoreline management plans (SMPs) that provide a framework for long term strategic planning at the coast, taking account of climate change and other factors. These SMPs are developed on a coastal cell basis which is appropriate for the regional planning scale.
The first round of plans for the whole coast of England was completed in 1999 and a major programme of review is currently being implemented for completion by 2010. This review will fully incorporate lessons learnt from the first round plans and three pilot second round plans that have been undertaken to test and develop DEFRA's revised guidance to the authorities. In addition, first round plans have pointed to the need for a number of more detailed strategy studies that have been progressed in many areas.
There is no separate funding allocation for SMPs and these plans and strategic studies are being funded from DEFRA's overall flood and coastal erosion risk management budget. However, priority has been given to such studies in the allocation of limited funds available for new projects in 2007-08 to provide a sound basis for future programmes of improvement works.
SMPs are key documents to ensure consideration of coastal management issues in regional spatial strategies and future river basin district management plans being produced under the Water Framework Directive.
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much in financial penalties was incurred by farmers in the UK for breaches under the Common Agricultural Policy in (a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006. 
The current financial value of penalties applied under the 2004 Bovine Subsidy Schemes is estimated at £1,896,572. These schemes include Beef Special Premium Scheme, Slaughter Premium Scheme (English Adult & Veal), Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Extensification Payment Scheme.
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs against how many holdings in the UK financial penalties were applied for breaches under the Common Agricultural Policy in (a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006. 
2,697 producers/holdings have been penalised to date under the 2004 Bovine Subsidy Schemes. These schemes include Beef Special Premium Scheme, Slaughter Premium Scheme (English Adult and Veal), Suckler Cow Premium Scheme and the Extensification Payment Scheme.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken to implement in the UK the programme for Enhancing Public Awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy (EU budget line 05 08 06); and if he will make a statement. 
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken to implement in the UK the Programme for Closer Dialogue with the Fishing Industry and Those
Affected by the Common Fisheries Policy (EU budget code 11 04 01); and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Programme for Closer Dialogue with the Fishing Industry and those affected by the Common Fisheries Policy involves the establishment and on-going support of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (AGFA). These bodies provide advice gathered from interested parties to the Commission and member states. The UK is not entitled to receive these funds, which are administered by the Commission to RACs and AGFA directly. The UK Fisheries Administrations do, however, support the aims of this programme and contribute funding from departmental budgets to support the work of the RACs.
The UK has an interest in four out of the seven RACs: the North Sea, North Western Waters, Pelagic and Long Distance RACs. While the European Commission has provided support for the set-up and certain operational costs, Defra and the Scottish Executive have provided additional funds and practical support for RACs. These are aimed at enhancing their efficiency, improving the quality of their advice and enabling interested parties in the UK to participate effectively in the RACs. For example, by funding specific projects designed to help RACs provide soundly based advice to the Commission.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which consultancy services his Department has employed over the past 12 months; what projects each has worked on; and what the cost to his Department was of each service. 
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which external consultants were used by (a) his Department and (b) each of its agencies on projects excluding private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships in 2005-06; and what the (i) nature and (ii) cost of the work was in each case. 
Barry Gardiner: The core-Department does not hold a central list of what every consultancy and professional services provider engaged by the core-Department worked on over the past 12 months, and such a list could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage fair and sustainable trading for dairy farmers in the UK; and if he will make a statement. 
Barry Gardiner: The Dairy Supply Chain Forum provides an opportunity for all links in the supply chain to meet to discuss the challenges facing the industry (in England) and come up with collaborative solutions. It has a pivotal role in providing a framework for constructive debate, giving leadership for the dairy sector and providing information to all the industry to make informed decisions about their future. It has already provided useful information on the impacts of Common Agricultural Policy reform on the dairy sector, global supply and demand, the effects of trade liberalisation, and on barriers to innovation. DEFRA, in collaboration with Dairy UK has enhanced the resources for the Forum this year, enabling more work to be driven forward.
In addition, the Food Chain Centre is undertaking a number of projects in the dairy sector which DEFRA has supported through substantial grants under the Agricultural Development Scheme (ADS). This work includes a value chain analysis of eight dairy chains, which looks at reducing supply chain waste and improving efficiency. DEFRA is also helping to fund a project being undertaken by the Food Chain Centre and Milk Development Council to encourage benchmarking among dairy farmers to enable them to find ways of reducing their costs of production.
Barry Gardiner: The major funding for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for local and regional initiatives is through the Revenue Support Grant made to local authorities. The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) is responsible for this funding. This covers a number of areas including local environmental quality and waste services.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many expert European negotiators he has in his Department; what tasks they are engaged in; and if he will make a statement. 
A substantial proportion of Defra's work on environment, agriculture, fisheries and animal health and welfare policy is connected with EU
decision-making processes. Therefore, at any given time, a considerable number of our policy experts will be engaged in different kinds of EU negotiations, ranging from ad hoc informal groups through to high-level formal negotiations.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|