Government response
INTRODUCTION
This report sets out Defra's response
to the Efra Select Committee's Report on Defra's Annual Report
2012-13[1].
EXPENDITURE AND ADMINISTRATION
In order to answer the Committee's key
recommendations (1, 2, 7 and 8) highlighted in the Summary of
its report we have set out our responses to those together.Our
response to the Committee's recommendations (3, 4, 5 and 6) on
the administration of the Common Agricultural Policy follow at
the end of this section.
BUDGET AND RESOURCING
1. Recommendation 1. The Secretary
of State needs to be clearer about what substantial cuts in Defra's
budget will mean for policy delivery. We understand that how Defra
spends its remaining budget will be determined in line with his
four priorities, but they are in themselves no clear guide to
where the axe will fall. Administrative and efficiency savings
will not represent the entire saving. We invite the Secretary
of State to set out in detail, in response to this Report, what
programmes and policies will be reduced or ended to meet the required
budget savings. (Paragraph 9)
As outlined by the Secretary of State,
Defra determines its funding allocations in line with four priorities,
as follows:
· Growing the rural economy:
investment through the Rural Development Programme for England
and through the Government's Agri-Tech Strategy[2];work
to influence other Government Departments' programmes, for example
to ensure DCMS broadband programme reaches rural areas; additional
funds allocated to help communities, businesses and farmers to
recover from the severe winter weather and floods.
· Improving the environment:
we had already protected the floods budget;an additional £130
million has been allocated for urgent repairs to flood defences;
an increase in £5m for waste crime; and an increased share
of the budget for agri-environment schemes in the next Rural Development
programme.
· Safeguarding animal health:
Funding was re-allocated to minimise risks and increasing preparedness
for animal disease outbreaks including investing in stronger bovine
TB control measures to support the implementation of A Strategy
for Achieving Officially Bovine Tuberculosis Free status for Englandwhich
was published in April 2014.
· Safeguarding plant health:
we have invested £7 million in plant health to protect the
UK from incursions of plant pests and diseases, mitigate and manage
existing outbreaks of plant pests and pathogens.This has included
building capacity in industry, the voluntary sector and the wider
public to understand, respond to and build resilience to plant
and tree disease and pests.
The Committee asked where cuts have
been made and how this has impacted policy.The Main Estimate Memorandum,which
will be sent to the Committee on 28 April, gives detailed variances
between the 2013/14 budget after the Supplementary Estimate and
the 2014/15 budget. There were significant adjustments made in
the Supplementary Estimate, primarily to deal with floods, which
mask the level of savings made from one year to the next. Other
changes made in the Supplementary Estimate reflect reallocation
of budgets between resource and capital and internal movement
of responsibilities between Directors.The table below shows the
movement in Defra's budget from 2013/14 main estimate to 2014/15
main estimate.
| 2013-14 Main Estimate
| 2013-14 Supplementary Estimate
| 2014-15 Main Estimate
|
| Resource DEL
| 2,122 |
2,000 | 1,992
|
Comparison of Defra's Resource
DEL Budget 2013-14 to 2014-15
Delivering the significant savings required
by the SR10 settlement has been a challenging process. Defra has
planned for and is delivering the savings required as part of
the SR10 settlement through both the core Department and its wider
network bodies over this period. Additional reductions (on top
of SR10) to Defra's budget of £19 million in 2014/15
and £18 million in 2015/16, have also been factored into
budgets for those two years and are reflected in the table in
the Annex.Delivering the savings required for both SR10 and 2015/16
has needed Defra to undertake strong financial management and
tough decision making on the reallocation of funding in line with
Ministerial priorities to protect floods and prioritise animal
and plant health.We are confident that through the application
of rigorous financial control, Defra will continue to manage within
its budgets.
Looking forward, significant savings
will be delivered through:
· Efficiencies and changes
in operating models.These include, for example, changes in the
way Shared Services for Defra, the Environment Agency and other
network bodies are delivered by moving to a Joint Venture.A Joint
Venture is a business agreement in which Defra and a private partner
jointly agree to set up a new organisation to develop and run
the business/project.
· Investments in the Strategic
Improvement Programme for the RPA are delivering and will continue
to improve performance, reduce costs and prepare for delivery
of CAP reforms in the future.At Natural England savings will be
delivered through restructuring and back office efficiencies.
· Contract negotiation in areas
such as waste PFI and the Marine Management Organisation Royal
Navy Contract are producing sizeable savings.
· Reprioritisation in RDPE
programmes during the transition year as schemes wind down prior
to the launch of a new programme in 2015 will also create savings.
· National Parks have delivered
and will continue to make savings but have received some protection
compared to other parts of the sector to ensure that they can
still deliver their priorities.
· Better prioritisation of
evidence investment will deliver substantial savings.
· There will be also be savings
from the Waste and Resources Action Programme as Defra reduces
its activities in areas of waste management where businesses are
better placed to act and there is no clear market failure.
By taking this approach, Defra is ensuring
it maintains essential capability and keeps the impact of the
budget reductions to a minimum.The Table in the Annex details
where the main Resource DEL savings will be achieved.
2. Recommendation 2. We understand
that nearly all Government departments face budget cuts, but savings
must not have an adverse impact on the Department's ability to
respond to emergencies. We invite the Department to set out its
position in relation to reported reductions in staff at the Environment
Agency, the future of Fera and reduced activity in the waste sector.
(Paragraph 14)
Ministers have prioritised flood defence
spending and agreed to maintain the Environment Agency's capital
programme with a six year capital settlement of £370million
in 2015/16 and the same in real terms each year until 2020/21
(see also details on the impact of Partnership funding in our
response to recommendation 15 below).The Environment Agency
will prioritise the resilience needed to manage flood incidents
and also in light of the additional £130million announced
in February and the £140m in Budget 2014 for flood risk management.
Environment Agency Staffing
The Environment Agency has prioritised
flood incident response above other work.The Environment Agency
has received additional funding of £130 million in 13/14
and 14/15 and a further £140m over 2014/15 and 2015/16 following
Budget 2014 to repair andmaintainvital flood and coastal defences
following last winter's floods.The Government will carry out a
rapid review of the additional work needed to restore our flood
defences and maintain them in target condition.
At the same time, the Environment Agency
is playing its part in reducing the deficit and delivering savings
through improved working practices.It will simplify its structures
and is moving from a three tier (national, regional and area)
to a two tier (national and area) structure from April 2014.The
Agency is, therefore, proceeding with releasing staff through
its Voluntary Early Release Scheme although flood posts will be
protected.
In view of this additional money, the
timetable and approach to the Environment Agency's change programme
and future staff numbers is under review.The Environment Agency
will consult with its staff and unions on its plans for the future
once these are clearer.However, following the additional funding,
reductions in overall job numbers will be lower than previously
thought and by October 2014 it is likely that job numbers will
be approximately 10,250 an estimated reduction of around 350 on
current staffing levels.The planned reduction in posts necessary
to ensure the Agency has an affordable business structure will
not affect its ability to respond to flooding and the additional
money will mean no reduction in the Agency's flood and coastal
risk management job numbers.
Budget 2014 provided an additional £5m
for waste enforcement initiatives to tackle waste crime.This announcement
reflects Government commitment to tackling this serious problem.Defra
is working with HM Treasury and the Environment Agency to ensure
the funding is targeted effectively.We want to see the legitimate
waste and resource industry flourish: that means taking a tough
approach with those who deliberately flout the rules.
The Future of the Food and Environment Research
Agency (Fera)
We have completed a market sounding
on options for the future of Fera (announced in November 2013)
and we intend to announce the next steps towards the beginning
of May 2014.The primary objective in considering a new business
model for Fera is to protect and enhance the capability that will
continue to be required by government.This includes the resources
that would need to be mobilised to deal with a specific incident
such as Chalara.Also, certain statutory services would be retained
in government if this goes ahead, including, the plant health,
bee health and GM Inspectorates.
The Waste Sector
From April 2014 we are reducing activity
in areas of waste policy where business is better placed to act
and there is no clear market failure, for example, commercial
and industrial waste, construction and demolition waste, and on
proactive energy from waste policy development.Our current programmes
of work on anaerobic digestion and food waste are nearing completion;
the responsibility for taking work forward will largely rest with
the industries concerned.In addition, given the strong financial
case for Local Authorities to realise efficiencies from their
waste contracts, we will focus our support through the Waste Infrastructure
Delivery Programme and reduce the level of generic support.
These changes will enable Defra to focus
on its priorities, as a Government Department, in ensuring the
negotiation and implementation of proportionate EU waste agreements.
This is likely to be a priority in 2014 as the European Commission
is expected to bring forward proposals on waste and resource efficiency.
PEOPLE STRATEGY
3. Recommendation 7. The Department
must find ways to prevent a repeat of these poor staff survey
results. We invite it to set out specific plans in its response
to this Report on how it will address low morale and lack of confidence
in the management of the Department. (Paragraph 27)
We have seen some improvements in Defra's
People Survey scores for 2013, where Defra's engagement index
increased from 50% to 52%, reflecting improved scores for all
the key drivers of engagement.This includes a 4% increase in Leading
and Managing Change and Organisation Objectives and Purpose, and
a 9% increase in Learning and Development.We are now also above
the Civil Service benchmark for Inclusion and Fair Treatment.
However, we acknowledge there is more
work to do.Defra and its executive agencies are developing action
plans to sustain and improve on this, with a particular focus
on vision and purpose, communications, leadership and change,
and learning and development.
4. Recommendation 8. We understand
that the Government's pay policy allows for bonuses to provide
incentives for good performance; we are surprised, however, by
the discrepancy between the amount of bonus paid to senior staff
and that paid to more junior staff. Given the savings that the
Department must make over the next few years, we recommend that
it review its practice on bonuses and consider whether, within
Government guidelines, increasing performance-related bonuses
for those at the lower end of salary scales, with a consequent
reduction for its higher-paid senior staff, might help to improve
staff morale. The Department must also monitor closely its treatment
of the performance of its disabled staff to deflect any suggestion
of bias against them by managers. (Paragraph 30)
Defra fully supports the importance
of celebrating success and rewarding staff for a job well done.We
use the full range of performance pay options allowed within Government
guidelines and the size of pot set to fund awards.Cabinet Office
do not allow the transfer of funding from the Senior Civil Service
(SCS) non-consolidated performance pay pot to that for staff below
SCS.If we were to use the 1% envelope available for the annual
pay award for bonuses for staff below SCS it would result in lower
consolidated pay increases which would adversely affect staff
morale.We will draw the Committee's concerns to the attention
of the Cabinet Office.
Defra takes the principles of equality
and diversity very seriously.The Department conducts analysis
of the end of performance year diversity as an integral part of
its overall Performance Management framework.These statistical
tests examine whether any significant relationship exists between
ratings and a number of demographic variables, including disability.The
analysis is shared with senior leaders, staff Diversity Networks
and Trade Unions and are published internally.This monitoring
process enables the Department to identify trends for particular
demographic groups such as staff with disabilities.All staff are
provided with comprehensive information to increase their understanding
of the Performance Management framework and how it applies to
them. Managers are given specific guidance on applying the process
fairly and consistently for all members of their team.This includes
when and how to make reasonable adjustments for disabled staff
as part of managing their performance effectively. Additionally,
all staff are encouraged to take Unconscious Bias training and
it is mandatory for all managers.
COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
The Committee has identified the accessibility
of the administration of the new Common Agricultural Policy as
an important factor in making it successful, alongside the need
for broadband in rural areas.The recommendations made in the Committee's
Ninth Report were also raised in its inquiry into CAP implementation[3].
Our answers below repeat those in the Government response published
on 20 February 2014[4]
and include an update where applicable.
5. Recommendation 3. Details showing
precisely which areas will be covered by the Rural Broadband Programme
and when must be published in order to encourage alternative providers
to fill in the gaps and provide certainty to those wishing to
invest in private solutions such as satellite. (Paragraph 18)(see
also recommendation 38 in the Committee's report on CAP implementation)
The Culture Secretary wrote to all local
authorities in England last year making clear that for reasons
of transparency and promoting competition, we strongly encourage
the publication of 7 digit postcode level maps.It remains the
responsibility of each local authority to develop and publish
this information—many have already done so, and details
are available from their websites.For example roll out plans for
Dorset can be found through the following link which provides
access to Dorset County Council's interactive availability map:
http://mapping.dorsetforyou.com/superfast/availability/map.We
expect the others to do so in the near future once local detailed
survey work has been completed to determine precisely where roll
out will go.This survey work identifies issues such as blocked
ducts or lack of available power which can make the cost of deploying
fibre prohibitive. In such cases alternative technologies may
need to be considered.We are continuing to work with BT and local
authorities to ensure transparency.
Broadband is a key priority for the
Government.The £530 million Rural Broadband Programme will
bring access to superfast broadband to over 4 million homes and
is currently giving access to 10,000 premises per week. The programme
is estimated to reach 90% of premises by early 2016.An additional
£250 million recently announcedwill support increased coverage
of superfast broadband to 95% of UK premises by 2017.We are also
exploring with industry on how to reach over 99% of premises—whether
that's fixed, wireless or 4G—by 2018.Government recently
announced a £10 million competitive fund to test innovativesolutions
to deliver superfast broadband in the most difficult to reach
areas and this opened on 21 March.
6. Recommendation 4. A paper-based
application process must be retained for delivery of the CAP,
and those farmers who take up this option, or who choose to use
an agent because they cannot apply online, must not be financially
penalised for doing so. (Paragraph 19)(see also recommendation
37 in the Committee's report on CAP implementation)
The Government acknowledges the Committee's
concerns around the transition away from paper-based processes.
The current systems operated by CAP delivery bodies need updating
and simplifying for customers, so change is required.
The CAP Delivery Programme is testing
the developing service with customers every fortnight to get their
input at every stage. This includes those who up until now have
not transacted online.Farmers and agents have told us they are
keen to see simplified and flexible processes which allow them
to apply and amend their details swiftly online at times which
suit them.
We recognise in the early days of the
new service that some customers will require support to adapt
and that not all customers will be able to get online.We are planning
assisted digital support for users who really need it, with an
Assisted Digital solution based around three options: through
an intermediary (other than an agent), in house via telephony
or face to face and the degree to which we use paper.
7. Recommendation 5. We recommend
that guidance on the new CAP is provided to farmers in paper form
in the run-up to the start of the new scheme. (Paragraph 20)(see
also recommendation 40 in the Committee's report on CAP implementation)
The Government recognises that in the
early days of the new service some customers will require support
to adapt.On the provision of paper guidance we will ensure that
our digital uptake campaign makes clear to customers how to find
such guidance.Online guidance will be available in printable formats
and will be the most up to date version.We have not ruled out
paper guidance in year one and will be developing guidance based
on the needs of those who will use it.
8. Recommendation 6. Natural England
should also be prepared to offer guidance to farmers whose land
is being entered into an agri-environment scheme. Natural England
must be able to reassure itself and others that those affected
by the agri-environment agreement either by undertaking the work,
or through income foregone, receive appropriate payment. (Paragraph
21)(see also recommendation 25 in the Committee's report
on CAP implementation)
In setting up Higher Level Stewardship
agreements, Natural England already provides detailed advice and
guidance to all the parties involved to ensure that the planned
outcomes from agreements can be delivered.The guidance was updated
in October 2011 to reflect suggestions from stakeholders and agreement
holders.Where radical changes in management are proposed, such
as fencing to reintroduce grazing or tree planting, then wider
community engagement by the applicant is encouraged and supported
to ensure that measures are understood and the public has a chance
to engage with the change.All interested parties should therefore
have a clear view of what is required and are at liberty not to
sign up where they may have concerns.
For Entry Level Stewardship, no adviser
guidance is provided but scheme handbooks and guidance provides
detailed support on the terms and conditions which will apply.EU
Regulations allow for agreements only with a single signatory,
and with commons this will usually be with a lead representative
of a Commons Association or Group (if there are less than five
participants).It is a requirement that there also has to be a
separate internal agreementwhich sets out the division of responsibilities
and how payments are to be divided between participants.Detailed
guidance is provided, including model rules, on how the internal
agreement should be structured.Although proof of the internal
agreement is required for audit purposes, the content is a private
matter to be agreed amongst the participants.
Natural England will continue to ensure
that the correct management options are in place to deliver the
required environmental outcomes, through a robust agreement and
that all parties involved are engaged with the negotiation process
and that their opinions are considered.However, the division of
payments must remain a private business matter between the members
of the Commoners' Association or Group.
POLICY AND DELIVERY
BOVINE TB
9. Recommendation 9. The two pilot
badger culls set out to assess the humaneness, safety and effectiveness
of using controlled shooting as a method of badger control. Accurate
estimates of the local badger population are crucial if the success
of a cull is to be accurately judged. Repeated revision of those
estimates undermines confidence in the process. As part of its
evaluation of the culls, the Government must demonstrate whether
there is any evidence of badgers moving from the cull zones into
neighbouring areas and thereby risking the spread of bovine TB.
(Paragraph 41)
Estimating badger populations accurately
is difficult.Throughout the process, we have used the best available
data from fieldwork carried out in the pilot areas, including
those obtained just prior to culling commencing.No evaluation
of badger movements into surrounding areas has been carried out,
however, changes in TB prevalence in cattle will be monitored
in these areas.
10. Recommendation 10. The Randomised
Badger Culling Trial demonstrated that at least 70% of the local
population of badgers need to be killed in order for a cull to
reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. We invite the Government
to set out why the first year of the pilots failed to achieve
the target figure in the allotted time and what changes are required
in order for the planned future culls to be effective. The Committee
will continue to monitor developments in this area. (Paragraph
42)
The approximate 70% reduction in badger
density achieved by the end of proactive culling in the RBCT (i.e.
after four to seven annual culls) was a factor likely to have
contributed to the reduction in cattle bTB in these areas. Three
of the ten areas achieved lower levels of removal in the first
annual cull (32%, 37%, 39%) but went on to contribute to the overall
benefits seen across the trial at its conclusion.
We already know that the first year
of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset did not make as much
progress as we hoped. This is confirmed in the report of the Independent
Expert Panel, which has provided its views on why this might have
happened. We shall work to implement the Panel's recommended improvements
so the second year of culling in these areas will start with these
in place.
BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING
The Committee's recommendations raise
important issues which the Government recognises and agrees are
important to consider.We have decided to follow the recommendations
of both the EFRA Select Committee and the Environmental Audit
Committee and wait until the pilots have been assessed before
making any policy decisions on biodiversity offsetting.
11. Recommendation 11. The Secretary
of State told us that he wants to "improve the environment"—to
leave it in a better state than previously—and to safeguard
the country from animal and plant disease: all objectives enshrined
in his four priorities for the Department. It is hard to disagree
with these objectives but it is equally important that policy
making is evidenced-based. The Government has initiated six pilot
offsetting projects and it is difficult to understand why it does
not wish to assess these properly before embarking on a wider
rollout. (Paragraph 48)
12. Recommendation 12. The Government
must obtain independent evaluation of its pilot schemes before
moving to implement the Department's biodiversity offsetting proposals.
Following the evaluation, if the proposals are implemented, the
Department must ensure the programme is monitored to ensure the
biodiversity benefits are being realised. (Paragraph 49)
We have decided to wait until the pilots
have been completed and fully assessed, so that it can analyse
the results, before making any policy decisions on offsetting.
The pilots are scheduled to finish at the end of March 2014, at
which point Collingwood Environmental Planning (an independent
environmental consultancy) will assess them.
We recognise the importance of regularly
reviewing government policy. In the case of offsetting, as well
as monitoring the realisation of biodiversity benefits, it would
be important to consider any new evidence that becomes available
(such as on habitat restoration techniques) to ensure the offsetting
system remains fit for purpose.The green paper discusses mechanisms
such as an offset register to allow the necessary information
to be collected and for periodic reviews to be conducted.
13. Recommendation 13. Any offsetting
scheme should take account of reduced public access to the biodiversity
which is lost as a result of the development. If local people's
enjoyment of habitats and wildlife will be directly affected by
development, consideration should be taken of this when determining
the location of the offset. (Paragraph 52)
The offsetting options explored in the
green paper are related to the provisions in the planning system
around impacts on biodiversity.The planning system separately
protects other environmental assets with, for example, sections
of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) setting out how
planning authorities should ensure the good design of development
and promote healthy communities, which includes the provision
of high-quality green space. It would therefore continue to be
acceptable to refuse planning permission for a development on
these grounds even if an offset was provided to compensate for
unavoidable losses of biodiversity. As a result, the Government
has not included these factors in the pilot metric, or any others
which are already covered elsewhere.
Nonetheless, we have recognised that
offsetting should strike a balance between local and national
biodiversity strategies, and the advantages of each. The green
paper therefore asked whether there should be constraints on the
location of offsets and if so what they should be.
14. Recommendation 14. A sufficient
geographical spread of offset locations must be maintained to
minimise the impact of threats to species and habitats. We invite
the Government to set a geographical limit to offsetting, and
to set out the specific circumstances under which exception may
be made, in any future proposals. (Paragraph 53)
We recognise that the location of offsets
is an important issue that needs to weigh, among other factors,
the benefits of local offsets with more strategic opportunities
(such as to create wildlife corridors) that may arise from offsets
at a greater distance.The green paper therefore asked whether
there should be constraints on the location of offsets and if
so what they should be.The Government will consider the recommendation
the Select Committee has made concerning the geographical spread
of offset locations when it comes to make its policy decisions.
15. Recommendation 15. We invite
the Department to confirm the amount of contributions received
from external sources under the Partnership Funding approach to
date, and to demonstrate how the Partnership Funding model for
flood defences will deliver much greater private sector funding
in the future. (Paragraph 55)
Partnership funding is enabling more
schemes to go ahead by clarifying what level of investment communities
can expect so that they can secure funding from other sources
allowing greater local choice.Of the 571 schemes allocated Defra
Partnership Funding in 2013/14, 322 schemes have secured external
contributions. Contributions of up to £148 million have been
identified for the four year programme to 2014/15 on top of Defra
grant in aid, compared to just £13 million previously. Early
indications suggest that up to 25% more schemes will go ahead
than if costs were met by Defra alone.
Approximately one quarter of the financial
contributions to Environment Agency led projects in 2013/14 and
2014/15 are from non-public sector partners.Providing an exact
overall figure is difficult because we cannot currently say how
much private money comes via local public bodies through sources
such as Community Infrastructure Levy.
Defra is undertaking an independent
evaluation into the wider impacts of the approach to ensure that
partnership funding continues to achieve its core objectives of
increasing levels of external funding for flood defence projects,
enabling greater local choice and improving value for money.
PLASTIC BAGS
16. Recommendation 16. We encourage
industry to follow-up on the Secretary of State's desire to see
the development of a genuine biodegradable plastic bag which can
be used to carry shopping. We are pleased that the Government
has finally agreed to impose a charge for single-use plastic carrier
bags in supermarkets and larger food retailers. However, we are
disappointed that the charge will not come into effect in England
until 2015, despite evidence of its success in reducing plastic
carrier bag usage in other parts of the UK and Ireland. (Paragraph
61)
17. Recommendation 17. Reducing the
number of single-use carrier bags which are given away is a quick
win: reducing both waste and environmental pollution with little
effort. While we would welcome the development of a fully biodegradable
shopping bag to replace existing plastic bags, this should not
be a condition for the introduction of the charge. Given the evidence
elsewhere, we recommend the early introduction of the charge.
When fully degradable plastic bags are available, these should
be exempt from any charge. (Paragraph 62)
We welcome the Committee's interest
and their support for the plastic bag charge in England and note
the comments provided.We want to reduce the number of plastic
bags being used in England and increase the number of bags being
reused by consumers.This will reduce the number of plastic bags
being discarded as litter on land and at sea.It will also reduce
the environmental and resource cost of their production.
We agree that good progress in reducing
plastic bag usage has been made through charging schemes in other
parts of the UK. In October 2015, the Government will bring into
force a 5p charge on all single-use plastic carrier bags in England.
The charge will not come into effect until 2015 because of the
time needed to prepare secondary legislation and work on details,
such as exemptions, and the time needed for retailers to prepare
for the change.
The charge in England will not include
biodegradable plastic bags that meet certain standards. Standards
for these bags will need to be worked up with the industry. We
are encouraging the development of better biodegradable bags to
provide consumers with options for those times when they do need
a bag. This is part of our challenge to UK industry to find innovative
approaches to decrease the environmental impact of plastic bags
and we have just awarded four contracts for feasibility studies.
Two studies will look into decreasing
the environmental impact of plastics polymers and two studies
are looking into economically viable methods for separating biodegradable
bags from the waste stream.This work will run in parallel to the
work on a charge and will not delay the introduction of the charge
in 2015.We will legislate for the biodegradable bag exemption
once a suitable bag is developed and standards are set.
The Environmental Audit Committee has
also raised concerns in its report of its inquiry into plastic
bags[5] (published on 6
February).We will respond in due course.
FOOD SECURITY
18. Recommendation 18. We have recently
put out a call for evidence for a new inquiry into food security.
We intend to explore the use of GM and other new technologies
in this inquiry (Paragraph 65)
We look forward to assisting the Committee
with their inquiry into food security, including the particular
GM aspects they have highlighted.
1 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Ninth
Report of Session 2013-14, Departmental Annual Report 2012-13,
HC 741, published 7 January 2014. Back
2
Joint-funded by Defra, BIS and DFID. Back
3
Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of
Session 2013-14, Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy
in England 2014 - 20, HC 745, published 03 December 2013. Back
4
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee - Seventh Special
Report, Government Response: Implementation of the Common Agricultural
Policy in England 2014-2020, published 20 February 2014. Back
5
Environmental Audit Committee, Eleventh Report of 2013-14 Session,
Plastic Bags, HC 861, published 6 February 2014. Back
| 
