In 2007-08, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (the Department) received £3,617 million from the Treasury. The Accounting Officer is expected to manage these resources efficiently and effectively to deliver a range of services and operations within the funding provided by Parliament. The Department failed to allocate final budgets to each of its business areas until five months into the 2007-08 financial year because: (a) planned expenditure was in excess of funds provided; (b) budget holders did not declare all financial commitments from the outset; and (c) the costs of unforeseen floods and the outbreaks of animal disease had to be managed. A similar situation had arisen in 2006-07 when the Department had to make mid-year budget reductions of £170 million to avoid the risk of overspending. The late notification of the reductions had an adverse impact on performance. In part the problems arise from the difficulties faced in sponsoring 31 delivery bodies, each with its own administrative functions and with different approaches to setting budgets and monitoring progress. Obtaining timely and realistic financial reports from delivery bodies was also difficult. A lack of awareness amongst the Department's Board Members of good financial management practice, together with cultural issues which did not prioritise financial management at a corporate level, added to the challenges. The Department's Management Board has since put in place more rigorous financial and outcome monitoring systems. Having agreed budgets for 2008-09 that accord with the Department's allocation from the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, the problems of 2006-07 and 2007-08 are not expected to recur in 2008-09.
Against a background where farm incomes are falling, the Government needs to recognise that cutting payments to England's farmers will reduce their ability to compete in the marketplace, will leave farmers less able to invest in vital infrastructure and may make them more vulnerable to shocks such as poor weather, higher input costs and price variations. The Committee also warns against plans to transfer more money away from direct payments to farmers by shifting it towards environmental schemes. It recommends that the Government maintains the current 9% rate of transfer away from the direct payment budget. This rate of transfer should rise to 15% in 2017 only if it can demonstrate that additional funds are required and that this change will deliver a clear benefit. Money should also only go to people who actually farm the land and meet an 'active farmer test'. From 2015, 30% of the direct payment will be conditional on farmers achieving basic environmental measures. A National Certification Scheme approach to 'greening' does not offer the flexibility to avoid the Commission's impractical crop diversification rule so the Government is right to dismiss this approach. A new, single IT system is being developed, and the Government want access to CAP funding to be 'digital by default', meaning farmers will have to apply online. A lot went wrong in the last round of changes, and these problems gave rise to £580 million in penalties. Does it make sense to introduce a new computer system at the same time as complex new payment rules?
The 2010 Spending Review required most departments to make cost savings, which would require staff reductions. Departments have reduced their number of employees to around 35,000 in 2011, nearly 18,000 of which have been achieved through early departures. If these staff reductions achieved and planned, are to be sustainable then they will need to be supported by a redesign of the way business is carried out. The Committee is not convinced that all departments are putting in place the fundamental redesign in working practices that is needed to operate permanently with a lower number of staff and this with the pace and scale of reductions means that there is a real risk to departments' ability to deliver services. And there concern about the lack of clear information to track the extent to which this risk is materialising. Without this information it is difficult to know to what extent services are being adversely affected by staff departures. The efficiency of early departures has been hampered by poor management information. Departments are considering individuals' performance when making decisions on staff departures. But the quality of data in performance appraisals has not been detailed enough to support this decision-making. The Committee considers that improving the quality and consistency of performance appraisal arrangements would bring both efficiency savings and better decision-making about the management of the workforce. The Treasury is responsible for signing off any individual exit payments that exceed the terms of the compensation scheme. It was discovered that the Treasury does not keep proper records of such requests and the Committee expects to see this rectified. The Cabinet Office estimates that around half of the required headcount reduction is yet to come and this is likely to be more challenging as the more achievable cuts have already been made and future cuts are likely to involve more compulsory redundancies.
The public sector in England spends around £2 billion per year on food and catering services, including in schools, hospitals and armed forces bases. This NAO report examines how public sector organisations can improve their food procurement practices in order to reduce costs whilst maintaining the quality of meals provided. The report finds that the public sector could achieve efficiency gains of £224 million by 2010-11, with significant scope for improvement in relation to: developing market knowledge and buying practices; employing joint procurement to increase purchasing power; establishing greater transparency in contract caterers' charges; promoting the professional development of catering staff in the public sector; reducing costs and environmental impacts through efficient operational practices; and increasing the take up of meals and income generated by them. Two accompanying documents are available separately: Case studies (HCP 963-II, ISBN 0102937435) and a Good practice guide (HCP 963-III, ISBN 0102937443).
A report from the Rural Advocate to the Prime Minister in June 2008 estimated the untapped potential from rural business as between GBP 236 billion and GBP 347 billion per annum. This report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee focuses on the potential of England's rural economy.
This White Paper, entitled "Creating growth, cutting carbon: making sustainable local transport happen", sets out the Government's aims in meeting two key objectives: (i) to help create growth in the economy; (ii) tackling climate change by cutting carbon emissions. Action at the local level is seen as delivering gains at the national level. For example, around every three trips made by car are less than 5 miles in length, and it could be argued many such trips could alternatively be cycled, walked or undertaken by public transport. The Government sees the encouragement of sustainable travel choices benefiting the economy, cutting carbon and contributing to road safety and public health. The new Local Sustainable Transport Fund aims to help local authorities to encourage people to travel sustainably. The publication is divided into nine chapters with one annex, and looks at the following areas: local transport - choices and implications; decentralising power - enabling local delivery; enabling sustainable transport choices; active travel; making transport more attractive; managing traffic to reduce carbon and tackle congestion; local transport in society.
This National Infrastructure Plan sets out the strategy for meeting the infrastructure needs of the UK economy. There are three elements to this strategy. First, the Government will plan for the medium term and across sectors. The Plan brings together a comprehensive cross-sectoral analysis of the UK's infrastructure networks and sets out a clear pipeline of over 500 infrastructure projects. Delivering these projects will ensure that the overall performance of the UK's infrastructure is maintained and improved over time. Second, to mobilise the finance required to deliver these projects, the Plan sets out a new approach to coordinating public and private investment in UK infrastructure. Funded through further reductions in current spending, additional investment in infrastructure is being announced. The Government will act to facilitate the private investment that will finance the majority of the UK's infrastructure. This includes bringing in new investors into UK infrastructure; introducing new sources of revenue such as tolling; allowing local authorities more flexibility in the way they use local receipts to fund major infrastructure in specific circumstances; and being willing to consider guarantees against specific risks that the market cannot bear. Third, the Government will take an active role in ensuring the infrastructure in the Plan is delivered efficiently and on time, with priority given to those projects most critical for economic growth. The Government is also reforming the planning and consenting systems to tackle these sources of cost and delay in infrastructure delivery.
UK farmers currently receive nearly [pound]3 billion a year in subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy. However, CAP reforms agreed in June 2003 will mean a step-change in the way agricultural subsidies will be paid in the future, based on the concept of 'decoupling' which will break the link between production and subsidy, and will give farmers the opportunity to focus on consumer market demand. This report by the National Audit Office examines a range of issues involved in farm business development support in England and makes recommendations for improvements to the operation of existing schemes which run to 2006 and the next phase of schemes to run from 2007 to 2013. Issues discussed include: DEFRA's strategy for sustainable farming covering the food chain as a whole; development scheme take-up levels, budget spend, application and assessment procedures, impact and evaluation; business support needs including advice and training, and tailoring schemes to meet local needs; comparisons with rural development schemes in Wales and Northern Ireland, in a number of other countries in Europe, as well as in the United States, Canada and New Zealand
The National Audit Office believes more could be done to manage the risk of a reduction in the value of EU funds to the UK in the event of a depreciation in the euro. The UK Government receives around £5 billion from the European Union each year to fund EU programmes in the UK. However, the relative value of the pound and the euro varies significantly, with the exchange rate fluctuating by up to 14 per cent in a single month. A 14 per cent change can lead to an increase or decrease of £700 million in the sterling value of funds provided by the EU if the exchange rate holds at that level. The use of forward contracts (a form of hedging where the department and a commercial bank agree an exchange rate in advance) has helped reduce the potential funds exposed to a fall in value from £8.5 billion to £2.4 billion in 2009-10. However wider use of hedging could reduce still further the amount of taxpayer funds at risk. Each department managing EU funds works in isolation on developing its policy. Such an arrangement is not cost effective. These departments would benefit from more detailed guidance from HM Treasury in this area, and from developing more pooled expertise to reduce duplication of effort. Government bodies require considerable expertise and support to ensure the most appropriate and cost-effective hedging arrangements are put in place.
Raising awareness and encouraging citizen involvement at a domestic level is fundamental to tackling climate change. This work examines: information and the raising of awareness about climate change; household energy efficiency; microgeneration; economic instruments and personal carbon allowances; and the role of the government.
Royal assent, 13 March 2014. An Act to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2008, 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013, 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013, 31 March 2014 and 31 March 2015; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2008, 31 March 2009, 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014
Royal assent, 26 March 2013. An Act to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012, 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending with 31 March 2013 and 31 March 2014; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2010, 31 March 2011, 31 March 2012 and 31 March 2013
In 2009-10, public expenditure rose to 48 per cent of GDP whilst income fell to 37 per cent, resulting in the largest deficit in Britain's peacetime history. This Spending Review sets out how the Coalition Government will carry out its deficit reduction plan. Particular focus has been given to reducing welfare costs and wasteful spending. This has enabled the Coalition Government to prioritise the NHS, schools, early years' provision and the capital investments designed to support long term economic growth. Departmental budgets other than health and overseas aid will be cut by an average of 19 per cent over four years. Key areas of Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) in addition to Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs) for each government department and for the devolved administrations are covered. The Review sets out departmental spending plans for the four years until 2014-15 and further savings and reforms to welfare, environmental levies and public service pensions. The Review protects high value transport maintenance and investment, maintains the science budget, invests in apprenticeships and the low carbon economy and allows universities to increase fees from the 2012-13 academic year. Fundamental reforms will simplify the welfare system and make net savings of �7 billion a year. Social housing will be reformed and social care will receive an additional �2 billion by 2014-15. Public service reform underpins the Review: decentralisation of power; cutting burdens and regulations on front-line staff; improving transparency, efficiency and accountability of local services. Local government will have greater freedom but must work within reduced allocations. Public sector pensions will be reformed in line with Lord Hutton's recommendations. Central government administration costs will be cut by 34 per cent by 2014-15. Government departments will produce business plans later in 2010 detailing reform plans and priorities.
It is the tenth anniversary of the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. The remit for this annual report (Cm. 7611, ISBN 9780101761123), is the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the minimum wage and the effects on different groups of workers. Also under review is the current apprenticeship exemptions. The Low Pay Commission consults with employers, workers and their representatives, with written evidence taken from over 90 organisations and individuals. The report is divided into 8 chapters with appendices, and covers the following areas: Chapter 1: Introduction; Chapter 2: Aggregate impact of the National Minimum Wage; Chapter 3: Low-paying sectors & small firms; Chapter 4: Particular groups of workers; Chapter 5: Young people; Chapter 6: Apprentices; Chapter 7: Compliance and enforcement; Chapter 8: Setting the rates. The Commission made the following recommendations, including: that the adult minimum wage rate should increase from £5.73 to £5.80 in October 2009; that youth development should increase from £4.77 to £4.83 and the rate for 16-17 year olds from £3.53 to £3.57 from October 2009. Also, that 21 year olds should be entitled to the adult rate of the National Minimum Wage and that a minimum wage for apprentices should be introduced under the National Minimum Wage.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change's (DECC) official CO2 figures - that count territorial emissions from power stations and transport, etc, within UK borders - show nearly 20% reduction between 1990-2009. But research commissioned for the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs reveals that CO2 emissions were 20% higher in 2009 if consumption based emissions - from imported goods - are included. The fall in territorial emissions was not mainly the consequence of the Government's climate policy. Rather it was the result of the shift in manufacturing industries away from the UK and the switch from coal to gas-fired electricity generation that began in the early 1990s. Since 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from imports have almost doubled (from 166 million tonnes (Mt) CO2 to 331 Mt CO2 in 2009). If the UK wishes to encourage emissions reductions in countries that manufacture and export goods to the UK, the MPs say the Government should recognise the growth in the UK's consumption-based emissions. Acknowledging that UK consumption is driving up territorial emissions in other countries could increase the UK's leverage over those emissions and help to secure a binding global agreement on carbon cuts. There is sufficiently robust data available to develop new policy options and identify carbon-intensive behaviours that are overlooked by concentrating on territorial emissions alone. Ministers should explore the options for incorporating consumption-based emissions data in to the policy making process and setting emissions targets on a consumption-basis at the national level.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change's Warm Front Scheme to tackle fuel poverty in England helped to improve the energy efficiency of over 635,000 households between June 2005 and March 2008. There were, however, 1.9 million vulnerable households in 2006, so this rate of progress will still leave many in fuel poverty in 2010. The installation of central heating systems and insulation in homes has helped vulnerable. 86 per cent of assisted households are either highly satisfied or satisfied with the work done. The delivery of the Scheme has been largely effective but it has been impaired by problems in Scheme design. The Government's use of proxy measures, such as benefit entitlement, to determine who is eligible for Scheme grants is a pragmatic approach, but it has resulted in inefficient targeting of resources. Fifty-seven per cent of vulnerable households in fuel poverty do not claim the relevant benefits to qualify for the Scheme. And nearly 75 per cent of households who would qualify are not necessarily in fuel poverty. In addition, between June 2005 and March 2008 the Scheme has given £34 million in grants to households whose properties were already comparatively energy efficient. Gas and oil boiler replacement costs are at the higher end of the range, partly because of Scheme specifications. The grant available has not increased since 2005 and more applicants (around 25 per cent in 2007-08) are having to contribute towards the cost of the work carried out. Some eligible applicants are therefore withdrawing from the Scheme, or not progressing their applications (around 20,400 households in total as of October 2008).
This annual statistical compendium from the Ministry of Defence contains a wide range of data relating to the armed forces, defence expenditure, service and civilian personnel and defence activities. Findings for the period 2003-04 include: i) defence spending was the Government's fourth highest expenditure, with a provisional outturn against the Departmental Expenditure Limits of £37.2 billion, and a total value of MoD fixed assets of £86.3 billion as of March 2003; ii) the total number of MoD personnel fell by 34 per cent between 1990 to 2004, with service personnel down by 32 per cent; iii) the proportion of serving personnel from the ethnic minorities stood at 4.9 per cent at April 2004, compared with 4.3 per cent the previous year; iv) in 2002-03, MoD net expenditure on R&D activity totalled £2.7 billion; and v) the MoD spent around £1.7 billion on conflict prevention activities worldwide during the year 2003-04.
Around 469,000 households and business in England are at risk of flooding and this figure is likely to rise of the next century because of factors such as climate change. The Environment Agency is responsible for managing the risk from main rivers and the sea in England and Wales. This report looks at their maintenance of 24,000 miles of flood defences and the construction of new defences. It notes the progress made since the last report in 2001 (HC 299 2000-01) and sets out the areas where there is room for further improvement.
This report finds that the UK has an excellent research base but is still failing to maximise its potential by translating research into wealth and health. The road to economic recovery will depend, in part, on exploitation of the UK's research base, which in turn requires efficient translation to generate returns on investments. Some areas of bioengineering, such as stem cells, have clearly benefited from strong Government leadership and support, backed up by generous levels of funding from both the public and private sectors. Others, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, are less well supported and funded. This is curious when GM crops are considered by the Government to be safe and offer potential benefits. GM crops are certainly the poor cousin in the bioengineering family, and we strongly urge the Government to signal its support for GM crops as well as improving the regulatory situation in Europe. Regulation of bioengineering is complex and researchers have found that regulations inhibit research and translation, either because of regulatory complexity (stem cells) or a flawed operation of the regulatory process (GM crops). There are good indications that the UK is learning from past experiences in bioengineering when handling new emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. The Government and Research Councils have recognised the value of synthetic biology early, and are providing funding. The Committee is also concerned that while research is well funded there is not enough forethought about synthetic biology translation, for example developing DNA synthesis capability, which would provide the UK with an excellent opportunity to get ahead internationally. If this is not addressed, synthetic biology runs the risk of becoming yet another story of the UK failing to capitalise on a strong research base and falling behind internationally.
The EU Single Payment Scheme replaced 11 previous subsidies to farmers based on agricultural production with one payment for land management. The European Commission gave some discretion to Member States over how to implement the scheme, and the Rural Payments Agency, which is responsible for administering the scheme in England, opted for the dynamic hybrid model which incorporates elements of previous entitlement and new regionalised area payments based on a flat rate per hectare. The Agency and Defra encountered severe problems in the implementation of the scheme in England, and by the end of March 2006, it had paid farmers only 15 per cent of the £1,515 million due, compared with its target of 96 per cent. This caused significant hardship to farmers and taxpayers will have to pay extra implementation costs. Defra has had to secure an extra £300 million to meet the potential cost of disallowance of expenditure by the European Commission arising on the problems in administering the scheme. Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 1631, session 2005-06; ISBN 9780102943399 published in October 2006, as well as a report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee (HCP 107-I, session 2006-07, ISBN 9780215033383) published in March 2007, this report by the Public Accounts Committee examines the impact of the payment delays on the farming sector, why implementation failed, the role of Defra and the changes being put in place to rectify the mistakes made. Lessons highlighted include: the Department made the scheme unnecessarily complex by choosing to adopt the most demanding implementation option; the Rural Payments Agency shed too many experienced staff at a key time; implementation of the project started before the scheme specification was finalised; and the IT system was introduced without adequate testing, a failure often seen with government IT projects.
In this report (HC 243, session 2008-09, ISBN 9780215529220) the Environmental Audit Committee calls for a sector-based universal labelling scheme comparable to those emerging for food products. The Committee says the Government should be prepared to legislate for such a scheme if necessary. The Committee found greenwash - the use of insubstantial or meaningless claims to promote a product - to be a growing problem and that the Government has a role in policing ’green' labels. Commenting on the report, Colin Challen MP, Chairman of the Environmental Information Sub-Committee, said: "The Government has to act to deal with the problem of greenwash. Clear labels are needed to help consumers make informed choices but for consumers to have confidence in them, environmental labels must be backed up by independent monitoring that is fully verified." Further, that "The proliferation of labels means we urgently need a universal scheme to help consumers discriminate between products on the basis of environmental factors. A robust labelling regime would also change the way many businesses behave and help drive up environmental standards across whole sectors of the economy." The Committee calls for more resources to be put into environmental labelling, including efforts to raise public awareness. It also wants more information to be made available on the standards and processes that underpin any label, with the Government setting clear standards and guidelines on the content and presentation of such information. In addition, the Committee emphasises that the Government should encourage carbon labelling on all products as part of a universal sector-based environmental labelling scheme.
The Government's objective is to build a strong economy and a fair society, in which there is opportunity and security for all. The 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review, 'Meeting the aspirations of the British People' (Cm 7227), presents updated assessments and forecasts of the economy and public finances, describes reforms that the Government is making and sets out the Government's priorities and spending plans for the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, including: maintaining macroeconomic stability; investing in the future with total public spending rising from £589bn in 2007-08 to £678bn in 2010-11 including an additional £2bn for capital investment in public services; continuing the sustained investment in the NHS, with resources rising from £90bn in 2007-08 to £110bn by 2010-11 and with value for money savings of at least £8.2bn contributing to the funding of the conclusions of the Darzi Review 'Our NHS, our future'; further sustained increases in resources for education, science, transport, housing, child poverty, security and international poverty reduction and the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games; simplifying the tax system to make it fairer, simpler and more efficient; modernising the tax system through major reforms to inheritance tax and capital gains tax; steps to protect the environment, including reforms of the tax regime for aviation and a new Environmental Taxation Fund to support the demonstration and deployment of new energy and efficiency technologies. For related publications, see 9780102944556 (2007 Budget Statement), 9780101698429 (2006 Pre-Budget), and for the Darzi Review see (http://www.ournhs.nhs.uk/files/283411_OurNHS_v3acc.pdf)
Government and regulators do not know by how much overall expected new investment by the private sector in infrastructure will increase household utility bills and whether bills will be affordable. The National Audit Office has recommended that the Treasury ensure there are mechanisms to assess the cumulative impact of infrastructure investment on consumer bills. This report, which focuses on the energy, water and, to a lesser extent, telecoms sectors, recognizes that the UK requires significant investment in new infrastructure. The Treasury expects that over two-thirds of the £310 billion worth of the planned infrastructure it has identified will be privately financed, owned and operated but paid for by consumers through their utility bills. High levels of expected new investment in infrastructure mean that energy and water bills may rise significantly from current levels. The available projections suggest that increases in both energy and water bills will continue to outstrip inflation, on average, up to 2030. This is particularly concerning, given that energy and water bills have increased significantly in recent years, while incomes have not. The affordability of utility bills can be assessed only in the context of wider pressures on household expenditure, including an understanding of all household bills as well as potential trends in household incomes. There is a range of schemes to support vulnerable consumers but without a fuller understanding of affordability in the round, government and regulators cannot assess the adequacy of these schemes, now or in the future
This is the fourth National Statistics annual report which highlights the variety of work carried out by statisticians and other analysts in the Government Statistical Service (GSS) during the year 2003-04. It considers the progress made in implementing the statistical plans set out in the National Statistics Work Programme for 2003/04 to 2005/06, across three main areas of work: major developments in cross-cutting departmental or theme boundaries; work carried out under the aegis of the 12 National Statistics Theme Groups; and quality improvements carried out in the context of the National Statistics Quality Review Programme.
The Government is shifting the goal-posts on fuel poverty so that official statistics record far fewer households as fuel-poor. The changes to the fuel poverty definition and target, in part being made through amendments to the Energy Bill, should be stopped unless the Government is prepared to make a public commitment to end fuel poverty altogether. A short-term bid to cut bills must not throw energy and climate change policy off-course. In the longer term green levies could actually keep bills down if they drive energy efficiency improvements that cut the cost of heating our homes. Insulating homes and supporting green technologies is vital to help the fuel poor and cut the emissions causing climate change. At the Rio+20 Summit and the G20, the Government committed itself to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The Government must set a target to reduce subsidies to harmful fossil fuels. The Government should also use the Autumn Statement as an opportunity to provide a clear and comprehensive analysis of energy subsidies in the UK. The report also looks at whether Government support for the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point constitutes a subsidy and concludes that it does, despite the Government's assurance otherwise. The Government's policy of 'no public subsidy for new nuclear' requires it to provide only 'similar' support to that provided to other types of energy, but even on that basis the deal for Hinkley Point C is 'dissimilar', notably on support for decommissioning and waste.
About a proposed Order to amend legislation, the Deer Act 1991, making it easier for individuals to take action to control deer population in England and Wales. It would also introduce various new provisions to that Act regarding deer welfare.
Following on from a NAO report on this topic (HCP 1186, session 2002-03; ISBN 0102923590) published in October 2003, the Committee's report focuses on the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in trying to prevent plant pests and diseases from entering the country and in managing and preventing the spread of outbreaks when they occur. The main impacts from plant pests and diseases are economic ones, and DEFRA spends £8 million each year on import controls and a further £14 million researching the diagnosis and control of pests. Its work is subject to two main international agreements, as well as WTO requirements that stipulate import controls must have a scientific basis and must not be used as a barrier to trade. Recommendations include that DEFRA should: reassess current inspection targets using cost-benefit analyses; establish a peer review system to provide assurance on the quality of inspections; work with industry and supermarkets to improve food labelling to raise consumer awareness of the UK's standards for plant health; address the inconsistencies in current farmer compensation arrangements and explore the feasibility of alternatives such as insurance or levy schemes.
This issue of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES) is part of a series and updates the figures given in the DUKES 2009. The publication consists of seven chapters; the first chapter deals with overall energy, with the other chapters covering specific fuels, combined heat and power and renewable sources of energy. The statistics presented in this digest will generate widespread interest from anyone working within or with an interest in energy sources, consumption and climate change. Chapters covering specific fuels and renewable sources of energy contain details on the production and consumption of individual fuels, presented using commodity balances. A commodity balance illustrates the flow of a fuel through from production to final consumption. These individual commodity balances are also combined in an energy balance, showing the interaction between different fuels. General energy statistics are presented in a table, revealing energy consumption by final users and an analysis of energy consumption by main industrial groups. Surveys conducted by AEA Energy & Environment on behalf of DECC estimate the contribution made by combined heat and power and renewable energy to energy production and consumption in the UK.
This report highlights the commitments for the UK from the conclusions agreed in the 'Rio+20' Summit. It was regretted that the Deputy Prime Minister declined to give evidence. It was also regretted that the Prime Minister did not attend the Rio+20 Summit. His absence undermined the Government's attempts to demonstrate its commitment to the sustainable development agenda, not just internationally but also at home in the UK. The conclusions of the Summit itself disappointed many with a lack of concrete agreement on key areas. On the other hand, many welcomed the firm commitment to develop new Sustainable Development Goals. The development of the SDGs and the Post-2015 Development Goals should be carried out jointly. The Prime Minister should take advantage of his position as co-chair of that High Level Panel to continue to push for integration of sustainable development targets with poverty eradication and climate change targets. Permanent mechanisms should be established to continue engagement with a wider range of NGOs and businesses and examine the scope for introducing wider-ranging 'sustainability reporting' for the private sector. New Sustainable Development Indicators which will complement such Government reporting, will reflect our call for emissions Indicators to be on a consumption (rather than just a production) basis. The Summit included commitments on education and the Government should remind schools of the scope for addressing sustainable development in their learning plans. Alongside this report, the Committee's scrutiny of the Government's progress in embedding sustainable development in its own policies and programmes is also being published (HC 202, session 2013-14, ISBN 9780215058911)
Both the UK and the EU have pinned much of their climate change policy on the effective opeation of the EU emissions trading system (ETS). Now in its second year the scheme has yet to demonstate that it can deliver the substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions that will form the yardstick of its success. This report examines the proposed revisions to the ETS, which would take effect in the scheme's third trading period, scheduled to last from 2013 to 2020. It is ultimately felt that if the ETS is to live up to its full potential, the aim must be to link it up with emissions trading schemes in other parts of the world so as to make the most of emission reduction opportunities in additional countries and sectors. However, the establishment of such links could prove arduous. It is anticipated that the EU may eventually face stark trade-offs between maintaining the environmental integrity of the ETS and extending its reach.
The Committee remains to be convinced that incentive or charging schemes will work well in England. The operation of only five pilot schemes (out of a total of 354 local authorities) by 2012, covering four different collection methods, in a mixture of rural and urban settings, is unlikely to provide sufficient information to judge whether all authorities should be able to offer such collection schemes. The Committee cannot see why any council would set up a complicated incentive or charging scheme that earns it no money and risks widespread public disapproval. The pilot schemes will have government funding, but that will not be available should there be a roll-out across all authorities, and the Committee calls for a full assessment of the implications for council budgets of instigating such schemes. No scheme will start before 2009, but will run for three years, which means that financial incentive schemes will have no discernible effect on local authorities' duty to meet European Union landfill diversion targets before penalties fall due in 2010 and 2013. The government's decision to cap the amounts local authorities can offer as incentives or take in charges runs counter to its rhetoric on local decision making. The Committee believes the government has retreated from its proposals outlined in the "Waste strategy for England 2007" (Cm. 7086, ISBN 9780101708623). The result is a messy compromise attracting hostile media coverage for a limited set of pilot schemes that will have little impact before EU fines fall due. The government should reconsider devolving the power to introduce schemes to local authorities themselves, as they are best placed to judge how refuse should be collected and whether local residents should be asked to gain incentives by increasing their recycling or to pay additional charges if they do not.
The Government is failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. There is little evidence of co-ordination amongst Government, government agencies and public bodies on communicating climate science, despite various policies at national and regional level to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the Government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence. Ministers therefore need to do more to demonstrate that is the case and consistently reflect the Government approach in all their communications, especially with the media. The report also criticises the BBC for its reporting on the issue. It points out that BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. The BBC is called to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. It is important that climate science is presented separately from any subsequent policy response. Government should work with the learned societies and national academies to develop a source of information on climate science that is discrete from policy delivery, comprehensible to the general public and responsive to both current developments and uncertainties in the science
England is a litter-ridden country compared to most of Europe, North America and Japan. Levels of litter in England have hardly improved in the past 12 years and the best estimates are that litter costs the taxpayer between £717 and £850 million a year to clear up. Change is needed. There has been a 20% increase in fast-food litter in the last year. The Government should bring forward legislation requiring all shops, restaurants and retail food outlets to keep the perimeters of their premises free from litter. Responsible businesses are already doing this. In addition, the fast-food industry should introduce 'on-pack' information on all branded take-away and fast-food packaging to remind consumers to dispose of litter responsibly. The most frequently littered items are chewing gum and smokers' materials. Chewing gum and staining are difficult and costly to remove. This was a matter of considerable concern upon which the Committee deliberated at length. Levels of fly-tipping increased by 20% in the last year. There were 852,000 reported incidents but only 2,000 convictions in the courts. The Government should introduce a fixed penalty notice for fly-tipping for household items - the bulk of the incidents - and the industry must introduce a scheme to take away unwanted household appliances and furniture when replacements are delivered. In the end it is individuals who litter and fly-tip their unwanted goods, and it is this behaviour which needs to change. The Committee support a variety of behaviour-changing activities and campaigns to prevent littering.
The Scheme is one of the Government's policy measures designed to help meet its commitments under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to secure significant reductions in UK greenhouse gas emissions, in order to address the causes of global warming. Under the Scheme, companies are issued with allowances equal to their target emissions for the year, and at the end of the year must hold enough allowances to cover its actual emissions. A company can choose to reduce its actual emissions below its target (enabling it to sell excess allowances to other companies, or to save them for use in future years), to meet its target, or to buy extra allowances to cover any emissions in excess of its target amount. Following on from a National Audit Office report on this topic (HCP 517, session 2003-04; ISBN 0102927804) published in April 2004, the Committee's report examines the risk management procedures associated with the Scheme, the way baselines for greenhouse emissions were set, the effectiveness of the auction and the market, and the wider benefits to the UK economy.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.