|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure that G8 Ministers adopt a statement on strengthening health systems in developing countries in their June communiqué. 
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of responses to full funding applications submitted to his Department were delayed in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Thomas: DFID does not keep a central record of the response rates achieved under the various funding schemes run across the Department. Information for three of the largest current schemes is given as follows.
In each of the last five years, final decisions about CSCF and DAF proposals have been rescheduled beyond original target dates, as a result of external circumstances and the need to carry out thorough due diligence checks across a wide range of organisations. In all cases, applicants have been kept fully informed about revised timetables and delays have been kept to a minimum (no greater than four weeks and usually significantly less). We inform all applicants of the results of their applications at the same time.
This fund has only been running for three years. Applications may be submitted either for Unearmarked (also known as Programmatic) funding or for project funding. There are two different application processes for these. For Unearmarked funding there is a one stage process, under which applicants submit a statement of intent. For project funding there is a two-stage process, under which applicants submit a short concept note. If their application is short-listed they are invited to submit a full project proposal. Figures for delays in informing applicants whether their concepts had been short-listed are provided in the answer I gave the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green today (UIN 135627). The figures for delays in informing applicants of decisions on full project proposals and statements of intent are as follows:
|Number||Number responded to within deadline||Number delayed||Percentage delayed|
|(1 )Deadline for submission of full project proposals was 1 May. Applications currently being assessed.|
(2 )The indicative time-table in the Guidelines for the 2006 competition said DFID would aim to inform applicants of the final decision on their proposals on 16 June 2006. In the event they were informed on 30 June 2006, except for one application on which there were further issues to resolve.
(3 )In the Guidelines for the 2005 competition DFID said they would aim to inform applicants of the outcome of the appraisal process by 15 September 2005. In the event all except six of the applicants were informed of DFIDs decision by 24 September 2005.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the increase in enrolment in primary schooling in countries receiving UK aid to help finance abolition of school
fees is represented by (a) children transferring from private and unregulated schools to the state sector and (b) children who previously received no schooling. 
Mr. Thomas: DFIDs financing of education plans is largely provided through general and sector budget support and it is not possible to disaggregate our support to show precisely how much has gone towards (a) children transferring from private and unregulated schools to the state sector and (b) children who previously received no schooling. Where there have been increases in enrolment as a result of the abolition of school fees, only aggregate data are available, it is not possible to identify where the extra children have come from. The primary source of global data on enrolment of school children is the Education for All Global Monitoring Report. The 2007 Report was launched on 26 October and may be accessed via:
The UKs support to education is provided through bilateral and multilateral channels, including the Education For All Fast Track Initiative. DFID provides bilateral support to partner governments to help them develop and implement their own education sector plans. Particular attention is given to getting children into school through removing school fees, providing equipment, building new schools, as well as through paying teachers adequate salaries and providing professional development opportunities for them.
Between 2000 and 2005 many countries abolished school fees, including Lesotho (2000), Cambodia (2001), Zambia (2002), Kenya (2003), Mozambique (2004), Vietnam (2004) and Burundi (2005). In Kenya, this led to an additional 1.2 million students entering the school system. In Burundi, almost 500,000 additional primary school pupils arrived to enrol on the first day of school, double the number anticipated. Removing school fees increases enrolment but also makes it necessary to plan for the surge in order to maintain adequate quality.
Derek Wyatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when his Department expects to make the 2005 single farm payment to Mr Francis, a constituent of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. 
Barry Gardiner: The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has checked its records and owing to there being several customers with the same surname in the Kent region RPA is unable to identify the Mr. Francis in question. In order to state when this payment will be made RPA will require Mr. Francis Single Business Identifier (SBI) number.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what contingency planning his Department is undertaking
to be able to respond effectively in the event of an outbreak of avian influenza in the UK; 
Mr. Bradshaw: My Department has robust and tested disease control plans and instructions in place to address an outbreak of avian influenza. These are set out in our Exotic Animal Disease Generic Contingency Plan. The plans and procedures are kept under close review.
The latest Contingency Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases was laid before Parliament on 13 December 2006. The plan was used effectively and successfully in partnership with operational bodies and interested parties to deal with the recent outbreak of H5N1 avian influenza in Suffolk.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department is taking to communicate to the public (a) the causes of climate change, (b) the impact on the United Kingdom and the wider world of climate change and (c) the possible solutions to climate change. 
Ian Pearson: The current Act on CO2 campaign supports a range of multi media, tools and activities aimed at educating, informing and enabling individuals to think about changing their behaviours and to adopt lower carbon lifestyles to help tackle climate change. Through the Climate Challenge Fund, over 80 local and community-level projects are communicating the causes and impacts of climate change.
Last years influential Stern Review on climate change continues to raise awareness, both domestically and globally, of the impacts and costs associated with climate change. DEFRA has supported, and was well represented at, the IPCC meetings ensuring that the messages contained in the summary reports are robust and based on sound science.
DEFRA funds the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) to advise organisations on how they might be affected by climate change, so that they can adapt to its impacts. Among other activities, UKCIP works with the Met Office Hadley Centre to provide climate change scenarios for the UK (the next of which are due for publication in 2008); provides tools for stakeholders to assess climate risk and plan adaptation strategies; and coordinates research about how climate change will affect the UK at national and regional levels.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many times the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance has met since 8 November 2006; 
Ian Pearson: The Commission for Environmental Markets and Economic Performance has met twice since 8 November 2006. The first meeting was on 19 December 2006 and the second on 5 March 2007. A final meeting is planned for 20 June 2007. In addition, Commission members have met informally on a number of occasions during this time, in workshops, meetings and other forums.
When the Commission was set up, the expectation was that it would report in spring 2007. The majority of its work will have been completed within this timetable, but we now anticipate that the final conclusions of the Commission will be available before the summer Parliamentary recess.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many registered companies were (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Environment Agency in each financial year since 1999; and what the average fine was in cases of successful prosecutions, broken down by (i) region and (ii) category of offence. 
Ian Pearson: The information requested is not held centrally. I have asked my officials to gather the information and I will write to the hon. Member with further details in due course and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the total cost to the UK economy of the first phase of the European Unions Emissions Trading Scheme. 
Ian Pearson: An exercise carried out last year, looking at the regulations in force as at May 2005, estimated that the administrative cost to businesses in phase I of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme was around £175,000 for all 511 installations in England and Wales.
For phase II, the total administrative cost (including Scotland and Northern Ireland) is estimated to be around £125,000. This is lower than in phase I as all installations already have Greenhouse Gas (GHG) permits.
Further estimates of the costs to the UK of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme are available in the Regulatory impact assessments published by DEFRA. Copies of these are available in the Library of the House.
A tiered approach to subsistence charges and permit application fees has been adopted, where the charges reflect the scale of emissions from the installation. This is consistent with cost-reflectivity principles.
Following lessons learnt from phase I of the scheme, the Government have introduced a de minimis threshold and revised the interpretation of the definition of a ceramics site. 10 per cent. of installations have been removed from phase II of the scheme covering less than 0.3 per cent. of scheme emissions. The revision of the ceramics definition is expected to remove around 30 installations, representing 0.08 per cent. of total emissions within the scheme.
The Environment Agency commissioned a study that looked at the cost of compliance in the EU ETS. It found that in the first year of the scheme the costs for smaller emitters (emitting less than 10KtCO2 a year) were between £1.08 and £2.77 per tonne of CO2.
It is difficult to get an accurate picture of the actual cost of compliance as Government do not have access to the prices businesses pay for allowances. The regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for phase II of the scheme estimates that the cost of the scheme to the UK economy could be between £80 million and £640 million per year. This cost assumes a certain level of abatement will take place within the UK and also that the UK will purchase some allowances from the market. The final cost will therefore depend on the market price of carbon.
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of UK businesses that have decided to migrate from participation in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme following changes made to the de minimis threshold of the scheme between its first phase and its second phase. 
Ian Pearson: A voluntary de minimis threshold was introduced for Phase II of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) due to the disproportionate burden placed on some installations by participation in the scheme.
94 installations successfully applied to the de minimis threshold and these will be excluded from Phase II. This has led to the removal of 10 per cent. of installations from the scheme, covering less than 0.3 per cent. of scheme emissions. Emissions at these installations are likely to be covered by the proposed Energy Performance Commitment or by Climate Change Agreements.
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether he expects to be accompanied by the Environment Ministers from the (a) Scottish Executive, (b) Welsh Assembly Government and (c) Northern Ireland Executive at the informal meeting of the European Environment Council of Ministers on 1 June. 
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will undertake a review of the environmental sustainability of the practice of locating sealed fuel oil tanks beneath domestic residences; and if he will make a statement. 
Ian Pearson: The need for environmental protection should be taken into account when locating fuel tanks and associated pipe-work underground. In 2002, DEFRA produced a groundwater protection code of practice for underground fuel dispensing facilities which, although aimed at commercial premises, highlights risks and good practice which might read across to domestic premises.
The Building Regulations do not currently apply to underground tanks but there are powers under the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 to make building regulations to deal with wider environmental issues if this is shown to be necessary and capable of effective enforcement.
I have recently asked my officials to liaise with other relevant Departments and advise me further on this issue. I will write to the hon. Member with further details in due course and place copies of the letter in the Libraries of both Houses. In the meantime, the Environment Agency has powers under the Groundwater Regulations 1998, to prohibit or control the underground storage of hydrocarbons, and to prosecute if pollution occurs.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|