Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
FURTHER WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO DEFRA AND REQUESTS
FOR INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
The following document includes questions that
the Committee did not have time to cover during its evidence session
with the Permanent Secretary on 18 July 2007. It also sets out
the various requests made by the Committee for the Department
to provide further information in writing.
Committee requests and questions in italics.
REQUESTS FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION
1. The Department agreed to provide the Committee
with:
A quarterly update of the Department's progress
initiating the Renew Defra programme (Q 18)
Please see the attached highlight report (from
29 August 2007).[18]
We will send further highlight reports at the end of each quarter.
The outcome of the ongoing exercise to determine
administration budgets for 2007-08 (Q 32)
Following detailed analysis of our budgets we
consider that 2007-08 allocations include provision for £352
million of expenditure to be classified as administration. These
allocations imply a £67 million overspend against the existing
£285 million baseline for Administration Costs and the Department
continues to work to reduce this expenditure. We are also in discussion
with Treasury on the correct classification of some items of professional
services expenditure, which may have consequences for our administration
control total.
A detailed note about how local authorities
will contribute to Defra's financial efficiency savings target,
including an explanation of how these efficiencies will be achieved
if local authority waste management costs are "rising steadily"
(page 37 of the Departmental Report) (Q 64)
Defra's target for the area of Environmental
Services (Waste Management and Street Cleansing) is to facilitate
delivery by Local Authorities of efficiencies amounting to £299
million in 2007-08 against a 2004-05 baseline. The table below
shows the trajectory initially planned.
|
| Savings | 2005-06
| 2006-07 | 2007-08
|
|
| Waste Procurement, £m | 25
| 95 | 154
|
| Street Cleansing, £m | 5
| 10 | 10
|
| Total, year by year, £m | 30
| 105 | 164
|
| Total, cumulative, £m | 30
| 135 | 299
|
|
The savings to be made were calculated using an economic
modelling system based on costs, "Local Authority Waste Recycling
Recovery and Disposal" (LAWRRD).
The model assigns an authority to one of three broad typological
groups—urban, semi urban and rural. The distribution of
properties from which waste has to be collected and transported
makes a fundamental difference to the most suitable approach an
authority should choose to adopt. Amongst its assumptions there
is capacity to quantify a number of behavioural and decision options,
including the following:
— authorities plan their waste management strategies
three to five years in advance;
— there is maximum integration of waste collection
and disposal operations in each authority;
— the extent to which an authority chooses to adopt
new waste disposal technology, enabling it to sell landfill capacity;
— the anti-incineration attitudes of the electorate,
modelled at £12 per ton;
— the pro-recycling attitudes of the electorate;
— pressures arising from meeting the landfill directive;
and
— market pressures arising from a number of players
leaving the waste management business.
The model was used to profile the local authority expenditure
on waste management with and without the adoption of "optimal"
waste management services. Both profiles showed a rising cost
profile, reflecting the higher cost of recycling waste rather
than just disposing of it through landfill. The forecast savings
represented the difference between the two profiles. Therefore,
savings reflect the costs of actual work compared with the "without
optimal" waste management profile. In the most simple terms,
even though the costs are rising, the costs are lower than they
would have been had we done nothing.
The main benefits in the area of Environmental Services are
expected to derive primarily from more efficient procurement and
delivery of waste management services. The waste management services
themselves are expected to benefit from a number of areas of efficiency:
— collaborative procurements;
— improved efficiency of contractor processes; and
— improved efficiency of client processes.
Progress towards the targets is reported by local authorities
through their forward-looking Annual Efficiency Statements in
April of each year, their backward-looking Annual Efficiency Statements
in June of each year, and the mid-year Annual Efficiency Statements
in November of each year.
Details of how the additional flood management expenditure
will be phased in up to 2010-11, and the various sources of this
expenditure (once this information becomes available) (Q 77-79)
Details of how the additional flood management expenditure
will be phased in up to 2010-11 will be decided in the Department's
forthcoming business planning round and the medium term planning
exercise for the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management capital
programme. We will of course let the Committee have the information
once the details are available.
A detailed note about the provision for possible EU disallowance,
including HM Treasury's contribution (Q 93)
Not printed.
FURTHER QUESTIONS
TO THE
DEPARTMENT
Headcount reduction target
In its response to the Committee's preliminary questions
(Q 3), the Department says an additional financial risk this year
is the "Department's ability to reduce its Administration
costs in line with the targeted headcount reductions, as there
is a systemic time-lag between the release of staff and the resultant
savings to Administration costs". The Department adds: "The
Permanent Secretary will be able to update the Committee at the
hearing on 18 July".
1. Could the Department provide an update about the possible
financial risk it is facing this year because of the time-lag
between targeted headcount reductions and savings in administration
costs?
The answer to this question is closely linked to the information
we give above in relation to administration budgets for 2007-08.
The latest administration budget for 2007-08 shows an outturn
of £352,205,000 set against a baseline of £285 million.
This assumes that we will achieve the headcount reductions as
planned—delivering the remaining headcount reductions of
328 by the end of December 2007 to save three months of salary
in this year. The financial risk of not meeting the headcount
reductions would depend on the extent we might miss the target
by and the length of time it would take to redress the balance.
Therefore, it is difficult to give anything other than a rather
crude assessment of the financial risk.
However, the "worst case" scenario in which the
328 surplus members of staff remain on our books until (at least)
31 March 2008, would add about £1.2 million to the budgeted
paybill each month. This figure is based on an average monthly
pay cost of £3,708. Over the course of 2007-08 this would
give a financial risk of approximately £3.7 million (328
members of staff x £3,708 x three months = £3.649 million).
The Department's initial RPA headcount reduction target
was 1,600 by the end of March 2008; the largest part of Defra's
total 2,400 headcount target. Page 112 of the DAR shows that there
will now be zero RPA redundancies by that date. The DAR states,
however, that there will be 600 RPA redundancies by the end of
the next CSR (07) period, that is by 2010-11.
2. Why is the new RPA headcount target so much lower than
the initial one, even though it's three years later? Is this an
indication you think current difficulties at the RPA will not
be fully resolved until at least 2011?
No. The RPA has made real progress in resolving the problems
it had in implementing the Single Payment Scheme. This is demonstrated
in its meeting its target for paying SPS 2006 claims. We expect
this progress to continue in the SPS 2007 scheme. Although there
is much to put right, the aim remains to provide a stable service
for SPS 2008.
The problems which arose in making SPS 2005 payments occurred
after the RPA Change Programme was set up—the original planning
assumptions are, therefore, no longer valid. As the EFRA report
on SPS documented, the scheme turned out to be much more complex
than was originally envisaged. The RPA is also now implementing
SPS on a different basis to that originally envisaged (in particular
on a case working rather than task basis). We do, however, expect
staff numbers within the Agency to reduce as SPS becomes more
stable. We expect the RPA to improve its administration and make
steady progress in reducing its headcount by about 900 in 2010-11.
RURAL PAYMENTS
AGENCY
IT at the Rural Payments Agency
Defra's response to the RPA report tells us that it will
be spending about £50 million on the RPA's IT systems in
this and the two coming Financial Years: £19.9 million in
2007-08, £21.4 million in 2008-09 and £7.7 million in
2009-10.
3. Have other budgets been cut to find the money for IT
work at the RPA? If not, how was the money found?
The investment required for the RPA's IT systems for 2007-08
was allocated as part of the budget setting round for this year
and reflects Ministers' commitment to support the Agency's Recovery
Plan and improve the accuracy and timeliness of payments to farmers.
Compared to the funding required in 2006-07 for the RPA's operating
costs, this actually represents a reduction of £64 million
from £334 million to £270 million and the funding was
prioritised as part of the budget setting exercise. Funding for
2008-09 and 2009-10 has not been decided yet as budgets for future
years will only be agreed following announcement of Defra's CSR
settlement in October.
4. How much of this money being spent on the RPA's IT will
be paid to Accenture?
The Department's response to the Select Committee's report
on SPS includes a figure of £55.7 million for planned system
improvements. These include business process re-engineering and
support services as well as developments of our IT systems, including
developments required as a result of already known policy changes.
Policy changes incorporate reforms to the sugar regime into SPS,
implement financial discipline controls and support simplification
of SPS concerning set aside, energy crops and, potentially, the
abolition of the 10 month rule. These changes will simplify RPA
processes as well as providing benefits to farmers, in terms of
the simplification of rules which relate to SPS payments. In total,
we anticipate that about £40 million of these costs would
be paid to Accenture over three years.
RPA disallowance
5. If agreed with the National Audit Office, could the
Department provide the agreed RPA provision on the balance sheet
for 2006-07
The provision for disallowance in the 2006-07 resource accounts
is still being audited by NAO and so the figures given below have
yet to be agreed. The provision will be made in Defra's accounts
rather than the RPA's.
The total proposed provisions are £348 million of which
£150.2 million was provided in 2005-06 and £197.8 million
in 2006-07. The provision is for potential disallowance in respect
of SPS 2005, SPS 2006, other CAP schemes and also an amount for
CAP scheme payments made by the devolved administrations.
In addition to the provisions, accruals of £80.4 million
(£17.4 in 2005-06 and £63.0 million in 2006-07) have
been made in respect of disallowance for the Fruit and Vegetable
Operational Programmes and late payment penalties for SPS 2005
to 30 June 2007.
Contingent liabilities of £99.6 million are in respect
of potential additional late payment penalties for SPS 2005 and
potential increased disallowance for SPS 2005 and SPS 2006. These
are also still subject to audit.
The table in the section above on requests for further information
gives a full breakdown by scheme.
6. What progress has been made with the European Union
in agreeing the final disallowed amounts for each of the relevant
financial years?
The EC has not yet completed all the audit work on SPS 2005
and as yet has made no proposals over the level of disallowance.
No work has commenced on the audit of SPS 2006.
The RPA has contested one assessment of disallowance, in
respect of another scheme, by challenging the decision at the
Conciliation Body (CB). The CB has requested further evidence
from RPA in support of the case. No timetable has been set for
publication of the CB's findings. It should be noted that the
CB's findings are not binding on the EC and so may not affect
the final disallowance assessment.
Other proposals for disallowance received from the EC are
being challenged by RPA and as yet there are no agreed figures.
CONSULTANTS
Page 122 of the DAR shows that, in 2005-06, Defra spent
£260 million on professional services, including £131
million on IT and telecommunication and £44 million on management
and business consultancy. The total has increased from £141
million in 2002-03. Defra says that:
The guiding criterion has been and remains value for money
from the use of consultants and professional services where it
is appropriate and necessary to utilise them as an alternative
to building in-house capacity in supporting the Department's strategies
and objectives together with front line service delivery.
7. Why has your spending on consultants and professional
services been so high in the last two financial years? Do you
have plans to reduce this spending?
The table below shows the latest figures on expenditure on
professional services, including data relating to the whole of
Financial Year 2006-07.
|
| Professional Services | 2002-03
| 2003-04 | 2004-05
| 2005-06 | 2006-07
|
|
| IT & Telecommunication | £45,431,803
| £52,805,769 | £99,254,525
| £130,937,698 | £162,829,742
|
| Management & Business Consultancy | £15,317,092
| £20,260,714 | £78,671,992
| £44,136,007 | £29,344,628
|
| Programme and Project Management | £20,579,670
| £23,118,978 | £24,323,086
| £18,192,186 | £4,407,693
|
| Research & Development | £9,032,254
| £9,751,623 | £18,113,871
| £20,190,046 | £33,450,349
|
| Specialist Consultancy | £39,942,837
| £39,828,357 | £36,312,208
| £36,646,432 | £53,732,059
|
| Temp Staff | £10,536,838
| £9,383,419 | £9,623,459
| £9,890,898 | £6,665,696
|
|
| Grand Total | £140,840,492
| £155,148,860
| £266,299,141
| £259,993,267
| £290,430,167
|
|
The increase in Professional Services expenditure can be
attributed to a number of factors:
(a) In October 2004 Defra outsourced the provision of
its Information Technology services. This resulted in a substantial
increase in Defra's expenditure in the IT and Telecommunications
category because of the expenditure aggregation and re-categorisation.
(b) In 2005 as part of Defra's category management strategy
underpinning the Gershon agenda, the Department undertook a detailed
analysis of expenditure on Professional Services.
This exercise has resulted in a revised classification of
Defra's expenditure. This has enabled the Department to develop
and implement a more rigorous and appropriate strategy for the
Professional Services expenditure category. This strategy includes:
— letting Multi-Commodity Frameworks (framework
agreements within an overarching category of expenditure). For
example, there will be frameworks for Management & Business
Consultancy, Project & Programme Management and Finance &
Audit Interims. These will:
— maximise Defra's purchasing power;
— introduce standard Defra rate cards;
— facilitate improved contract management
and benefits realisation; and
— deliver improved value for money, including
a heavy emphasis on payment and incentivisation mechanisms:
— improved governance and control on Professional
Services expenditure, including:
— implementation in September 2007 of
a Professional Services Commissioning Process which mandates Management
Board approval on all Professional Services expenditure over £93,738
and any non competitive procurements in this category;
— implementation in August 2007 of a Human
Resources Recruitment Policy which covers the procurement of interims
and consultants. This intends to strengthen the current controls
by mandating that Defra fully utilises its Redeployment Register
and Internal Trawl data before trying to fill vacant positions
externally by using a consultant or interim resource. Any decision
to fill vacant positions using external resources must be fully
justified to and authorised by the appropriate management. In
summation the Department needs to be very clear that skills or
expertise that it is "buying in" do not already exist
in the organisation.
(c) The guiding criterion has been and remains value for
money from the use of consultants and professional services where
it is appropriate and necessary to utilise them as an alternative
to building in-house capacity in supporting the Department's strategies
and objectives together with front line services.
This approach has been reinforced by Sir John Bourn, head
of the National Audit Office who said:
"Consultants can perform a vital role in delivering public
services, providing skills which may be lacking in the public
sector and helping to bring about improvements which may otherwise
have been unattainable."
(d) The Renew Defra Programme, which was launched earlier
this year, is an ambitious departmental change programme that
aims to transform the way Defra operates. It will create a department
where people and resources can be moved quickly and flexibly and
work is undertaken more collaboratively and efficiently. One of
the key aims of the programme is to use Defra's internal resources
more efficiently and effectively thereby reducing the Department's
reliance and expenditure on external professional services.
8. What are you doing to improve skills within Defra so
that your dependence on consultants reduces?
The results of work underway as part of the Our Way workstream
of the Renew programme will lead to increased flexible deployment
of Defra staff across the organisation. This will enable managers
to draw more easily on available resource both for short notice
work and discrete short term projects and therefore reduce the
need to engage temps and contractors in cases where Defra staff
can and should be used.
There are also currently tighter controls on engaging consultants
via a moratorium on spend, with exceptions being assessed on a
case by case basis, as well as recent Treasury guidance to increase
visibility of such spend by charging consultancy costs in many
situations to administration budgets rather than programme budgets.
Tighter control on projects being undertaken across the department
via Portfolio Management including the need for detailed business
cases will help challenge and validate the approach being taken
to resource activities before resources are released.
There will be a place for consultants in relevant situations
where they bring expertise or specialist knowledge but it will
be important to try and ensure that there is appropriate knowledge
transfer to Defra teams during projects to build capability of
our teams.
9. How often do you require consultants to transfer skills
to Defra staff as part of their contract so as to reduce the need
to employ consultants in the future?
a) Defra recognises that knowledge transfer is a two-way
process and needs to engage with its professional services providers
actively to ensure that its internal members of staff develop
their skills when working with consultants.
b) To ensure effective knowledge transfer between external
professional services resources and Defra employees, the Central
Procurement Group has:
— incorporated Defra's approach to knowledge transfer
within the specifications used when tendering for Professional
Services Frameworks;
— worked with tenderers to establish their views
and experience of effective knowledge transfer. This information
is helping Procurement to develop a process to manage effective
knowledge transfer which is workable for both parties; and
— decided to include advice and guidance in the
Framework Agreement user guides on how to facilitate effective
knowledge transfer when using external Professional Services.
This will include relevant Key Performance Indicators and specific
tools and techniques that can be used.
PSA TARGET 3: SSSI
Public Service Agreement target 3b: Sites of Special Scientific
Interest
Care for our natural heritage, make the countryside attractive
and enjoyable for all and preserve biological diversity by bringing
into favourable condition 95% of all nationally important wildlife
sites by 2010.
Page 53 of the DAR says that Natural England has developed
a new SSSI information database (ENSIS) which will aid achievement
of the target. The new system will facilitate the "production
of timetabled delivery programmes" and will help to ensure
that the action needed to bring SSSI land into target condition
is "properly planned". However, the DAR does not give
indication of the performance of the database.
10. What testing and trialling has been carried out on
the ENSIS database?
Natural England's ENSIS database is used to maintain information
on the ecological condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSIs) in England. It includes data on species and habitats,
management information and assessments of condition.
Each SSSI is subdivided into one or more units for the purpose
of management and reporting. Natural England has assessed the
condition of all 22,000 of these SSSI units and for those in unfavourable
condition has identified the reasons and the actions needed to
bring them into a favourable or recovering condition (these actions
are termed remedies). A remedy comprises the mechanism that is
required to deliver favourable or recovering condition, the organisation(s)
responsible for carrying out the necessary action, and a date
for implementation. ENSIS was expanded in 2005 to capture remedy
information and record progress against delivery—this subsection
of ENSIS is known as the Remedies Database.
The Remedies Database was developed to co-ordinate work between
the public bodies, commercial statutory undertakers and voluntary
bodies which manage and regulate activities on SSSIs. Natural
England carried out trialling of the Remedies Database over a
three month period in 2005, with the help of the Environment Agency,
the Ministry of Defence, the National Trust and the RSPB. This
trial led to a number of improvements, which were put into effect
before the system was launched. The "roll out" of the
live database also involved detailed discussions and testing with
partner organisations to make sure that the remedies reflected
the partners' current operational practices. These remedies are
kept under continuous review and are updated when necessary.
Delivery partners access remedies data through a secure gateway
to ENSIS, and provide feedback in the form of agreeing the proposed
remedies or by making suggestions as to more appropriate remedy
mechanisms or responsible organisations. This in itself is a key
method of validation, as partners are able to confirm that the
data held in relation to their organisation is correct. In total,
259 separate organisations have identified remedies and there
are 340 users registered to access the Remedies Database.
The system has now been in operation for two years and confidence
in its integrity is high. Natural England runs monthly validation
reports on the ENSIS database and it is designed with various
inbuilt checks to prevent incorrect data being entered. Data from
the Remedies Database are also regularly reviewed by the key stakeholder
group for the SSSI target—the Major Landowners Group.
PSA TARGET 6: WASTE
AND RECYCLING
(DAR, P 40-42)
Public Service Agreement target 6: Waste and recycling
To enable at least 25% of household waste to be recycled
or composted by 2005-06, with further improvement by 2008.
Page 42 of the Departmental Report says that Defra paid
out £105 million to local authorities in 2006-07 under the
Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant (WPEG) programme. A further
£110 million will be provided during 2007-08 and will be
administered by the Department for Communities and Local Government
as part of its Local Area Agreement (LAA) fund.
In its response to the Committee's preliminary written
questions (Annex, Q 5), the Department says that the WPEG grant
is unringfenced in accordance with the Government's policy of
giving local authorities freedoms and flexibilities.
11. How can the Department be certain that the unringfenced
WPEG funding to local authorities is not diverted elsewhere, thus
having a negative impact on PSA Target 6?
Defra worked closely with the National Audit Office to develop
an evidence base to provide information about the levels of Waste
Performance and Efficiency Grant funding allocated to waste-related
projects in 2006-07. Information was sought on a voluntary basis
from the 25 local authorities that received the largest allocations,
covering 26% of total funding. The responses from local authorities
indicated that around 95% of the funding allocated was assigned
to waste projects. Some funding was allocated to waste projects
but not used in the period and it has been carried forward by
those authorities for use in 2007-08. A high proportion of spend
on waste for an unringfenced grant is an indication of the importance
which local authorities attach to moving management of waste up
the waste hierarchy.
For 2007-08, Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant has been
allocated to local authorities through Local Area Agreements (LAAs).
Inclusion of mandatory waste outcomes in LAAs gives Government
a clear basis on which to assess the performance of local authorities
in relation to waste. As with other LAA funding, WPEG is unringfenced
within the parameters of the LAA and it is therefore for local
government to decide how to invest to achieve their negotiated
outcomes.
NEW PUBLIC
SERVICE AGREEMENT
(PSA) TARGETS FOR
THE CSR 07 PERIOD
12. How will you ensure that the indicators for the two
new proposed PSA targets will be measurable and specific, as opposed
to some of the current PSA targets?
13. Both PSAs will be delivered by a number of Government
departments, with Defra taking the lead. How will this work in
practice?
The PSAs focus on a cross-Government set of high-level strategic
priorities, which are shared by several Departments. Each PSA
will be assigned a specific Cabinet sub-committee, which will
act as necessary to resolve questions relating to that PSA and
which cut across interdepartmental boundaries. All departments
will be responsible for reporting on their contribution and will,
therefore, have a stake in making this system work effectively.
Making indicators for the new PSAs measurable and specific
is a key aim of the whole CSR. The specific intention of the guidance
for the new CSR is that indicators should be more outcome-focused,
specific, measurable, and accurate enough to enable decision making.
The indicators that we have proposed for the two PSAs led by Defra
will conform to these criteria.
On cross-departmental governance, we understand that central
guidance will shortly be published on reporting and monitoring
arrangements. A six month reporting cycle for PSAs is envisaged,
with one self-assessment per PSA provided by the lead department,
covering progress against the indicators and other key elements
of the delivery agreement. The lead department will then be responsible
for securing contributions from other government departments to
the PSA report.
In the case of Defra, we will expect representatives (at
an appropriate senior level) of the formal delivery partners for
the PSAs which we lead, to sit on the relevant programme board.
They will be expected to provide us with returns on their contribution
to the delivery of the PSA when we report to the Treasury every
six months.
ANIMAL HEALTH
AND WELFARE
Pet Fairs
The Government has declared its intention to produce regulations
prohibiting the sale of animals in the course of business to members
of the public at pet fairs by 2008.
14. What consultation has been held by Defra on the legality
of pet fairs?
A 2006 Judicial Review found that a decision by a local authority
to issue an organiser of a pet fair with a licence made under
the Pet Animals Act 1951 (the 1951 Act) was incorrect. This was
because a pet fair was considered to be a collection of stalls
in a market and even if a licence could be issued, each stallholder
would need to be licensed rather than just the organiser.
The Judicial Review therefore clarified that licences made
under the 1951 Act could not be issued to organisers of pet fairs.
The 1951 Act is only concerned with those people in the business
of selling animals and not hobbyists. So, a pet fair that includes
the selling of animals by hobbyists only, can continue to do so
without the need for a licence.
The Government proposes to launch a consultation on draft
pet vending regulations to replace the 1951 Act by the end of
this year.
We propose to maintain the ban on commercial pet fairs, although
with exemptions in respect of commercial koi carp shows, racing
pigeon shows and poultry shows because the hobbies rely heavily
on commercial vendors and there have been little or no reports
of poor welfare at these shows.
15. Is Defra on track to produce new regulations for pet
fairs by 2008?
The Government proposes to bring into force regulations to
replace the existing Pet Animals Act 1951 in October 2008. A wide
consultation will commence by the end of this year.
Circuses and performing animals
The Government has declared its intention to produce draft
regulations on wild animals in circuses for public consultation
by 2008.
The Government has proposed that trainers of performing
animals should be licensed and that premises where animals are
housed, trained or perform should be subject to inspection. The
Government intends to consult on this proposal but no timetable
has been set.
16. Has the Circus Working Group reported its findings
to Defra ministers yet? When will the draft regulations on the
use of wild animals in circuses be available for public consultation?
Due in part to the indisposition of the Chair of the Circus
Working Group, there has been a further delay in the submission
of the report on wild animal acts in circuses to Defra Ministers.
We anticipate that the report will be published soon after recess
and Ministers will want to reflect on the contents before any
decisions are reached. It is not yet possible to advise the committee
on how or when the regulation of wild animal acts in circuses,
including any public consultation, will be progressed.
17. What is your timetable for the introduction of regulations
on the licensing of performing animals?
The timetabling for secondary legislation was changed during
the passage of the Animal Welfare Bill through Parliament because
of different priorities expressed by Parliamentarians. Priority
is now being given to wild animals in circuses, pet vending, game
bird rearing and greyhound racing. As a result, it is no longer
possible to offer a commitment concerning the timing of regulations
on performing animals. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is
a need for the legislation relating to performing animals to be
overhauled.
In the meantime, PAWSI (Performing Animal Welfare Standards
International), which currently acts as a voluntary industry regulator,
is continuing to make significant progress in raising welfare
standards for animals used in all types of performance. This has
included setting standards and accreditation of skills, including
a NVQ scheme for animal trainers and suppliers. The work being
done by PAWSI, which has received widespread backing from the
audio-visual industry, indicates that there is considerable scope
for self-regulation within the industry, which we regard as preferable
to Government intervention.
DISEASE PREPAREDNESS
Pages 97-98 of the DAR outline Defra's animal disease
preparedness policies. It says Defra has contributed £30
million over three years towards the global effort to tackle avian
flu at sources and prepare for a possible pandemic. Defra has
a planned 2007-08 allocation of £156.1 million towards the
cost of eradication of BSE. In addition, Defra has a planned allocation
of £97 million in 2007-08 and 2008-09 towards control and
research for Bovine TB. Of that, £18.8 million has been earmarked
for research.
In June 2006, there was a re-emergence of the bluetongue
virus in Germany.[19]
18. Which potential disease risks has the executive agency
Animal Health identified in the near-term future? To what extent
is the Bluetongue virus considered a threat to the UK?
As the current outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease illustrates,
incidents of exotic notifiable disease are largely unpredictable.
Disease prevention and contingency planning are therefore generic
in order to recognise a wide range of threats.
Aside from the current Foot and Mouth outbreak, of greatest
concern at present are:
— highly pathogenic avian influenza which is present
on the continent and which could be brought to GB through uncontrollable
wild bird migration.
— Newcastle Disease which could also be introduced
to poultry flocks from wild birds. This risk is lower because
commercial poultry are routinely vaccinated.
— Exotic diseases of pigs—classical swine
fever, African swine fever, swine vesicular disease. These are
all present within the EU and are relatively easy to transmit,
particularly through illegal feeding of waste food.
— Foot and Mouth Disease is still widespread in
Africa, Asia and South America and new strains emerge.
In addition, Defra closely monitors and assesses the risk
to the UK of global outbreaks of high impact animal diseases (such
as Foot and Mouth Disease, classical and African swine fevers,
African horse sickness, sheep and goat pox, Rift Valley fever;
peste des petits ruminants and lumpy skin disease). It considers
various routes (including legal and illegal trade, natural factors,
and mechanical transmission) by which diseases could potentially
be introduced to the UK.
Defra and Animal Health also regularly review disease control
strategies and contingency plans as a matter of course, in order
to be fully prepared for any potential disease incursion.
Further information can be found on the Defra website:
International Disease Monitoring
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/monitoring/index.htm
Notifiable Diseases
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/index.htm
There have been a number of recently reported cases of Bluetongue
serotype 8 (BTV8) in north-west Europe (Belgium, The Netherlands,
Luxembourg, parts of western Germany and parts of north-eastern
France). The emerging epidemiological evidence demonstrates that
the BTV8 has successfully over-wintered in the areas that have
been affected last year. It is now also spreading into adjacent
areas not previously known to be affected. In addition, other
strains of bluetongue are present in Southern Europe.
Imports of live animals from infected areas are not permitted.
Animals that transit through bluetongue restricted zones are treated
with insecticides. All susceptible livestock imported from the
continent are restricted until they have given a negative result
to post-import testing.
Infected midge vectors may be blown across the sea to Eastern
England. This possibility is kept under constant review with the
help of a meteorological model but cannot be predicted with certainty.
Defra continues to monitor and review developments.
[18b] The Government has recently announced proposals to allow
the farming sector greater input into future animal disease and
prevention policies, in exchange for the sector sharing some of
the costs of these policies.[20]
How do you anticipate animal disease control and prevention will
be funded in the future? What role do you envisage the farming
sector will have in the development of the animal disease policies?
We are looking to establish shared responsibility for animal
health and welfare policy, controls and costs, partly by building
on increasingly productive partnership working experience. This
will involve a shift in the funding balance away from the tax
payer to those benefiting directly from the disease control regime.
It should also result in cost effective, practicable solutions
in relation to disease prevention and control. Ideally, the mechanisms
used to generate revenue for this purpose will be designed to
encourage behaviours addressing risk, while discouraging risky
behaviour.
The Department is working closely with industry to develop
proposals, principally through the work of the UK Consultative
Forum; this body is tasked with representing the interests of
the entire food chain, and consists of representatives of the
main farming unions and departmental officials from across the
UK. Following consultation on the principles of responsibility
and cost sharing we intend to launch further public consultations
over the next year. Working with the industry in this way will
establish the basis on which we will look to establish clear roles
and responsibilities on animal health and welfare, policies, controls
and funding.
BIOENERGY
The Government Response to the Committee's Report "Climate
change: the role of bioenergy" stated that the outcome of
work examining the potential support mechanisms for renewable
heat would be reported in the UK Biomass Strategy. However, the
UK Biomass Strategy (May 2007) only reports that Ernst & Young
has been commissioned to examine "the initial business case
on support for renewable heat".
19. What progress is being made to develop appropriate
support mechanisms for biomass heat?
As stated in the Energy White Paper published earlier this
year, the Government is committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions
from heat across all sectors through a variety of methods including
the encouragement of renewable energy technologies for heating.
Amongst these technologies, biomass heat plays a key role. Since
publication of the White Paper several Government Departments,
including Defra and BERR, have been working together to examine
the case for support for several renewable energy technologies,
including biomass heat, and if necessary to develop options for
that support. Officials are due to report to Ministers later this
year.
[19b] The Biomass Taskforce reported in October 2005. Why,
nearly two years later, is the Government still "continuing
to develop its thinking in this area" (Energy White Paper)?
The Government has produced a Biomass Strategy, which was
published alongside the Energy White Paper earlier this year.
The Strategy identifies biomass heating as the most cost efficient
use for this fuel and provides a framework for the development
of biomass.
The Government believes it is essential to consider the heat
sector holistically and is carrying out further work into the
case for supporting renewable heat technologies including biomass
heat and, if necessary, into developing options to provide that
support. This work is considering the potential for low carbon
heating across the economy at all scales from domestic to large-scale
industrial use and exploring options to encourage the uptake of
renewable technologies further, including biomass-related technologies,
building on the work set out in the Biomass Strategy and the 2007
Energy White Paper. Officials are due to report to Ministers later
this year.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
September 2007
18
Not printed Back
19
"Fears of Bluetongue virus hitting the UK this year are
heightened", Farmers Guardian, 29 June 2007 Back
20
"Rooker's u-turn gives industry a voice on disease control",
Aberdeen Press & Journal, 3 July 2007, p 20 Back
| 
