You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

Public Bodies

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those public bodies (1) which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17586]

Mr. Morley: Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by the Cabinet Office and this publication may be accessed via the Cabinet Office's website http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/ caboff/pb00/pb00.htm.

Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on the Cabinet Office's website.

Public bodies now the responsibility of my Department, which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000 are as follows:

























27 Nov 2001 : Column: 850W









Local Bodies

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of her Department and its predecessors since May 1997. [17587]

Mr. Morley: No such local bodies have been set up since May 1997 under legislation which is the responsibility of my Department or its predecessors.

Veterinary Medicines

Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Veterinary Medicines Directorate intends to publish the minutes of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues (1995 to 2000). [16695]

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to ensure that the minutes of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's Advisory Group on Veterinary Medicines will be available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and if she will make a statement. [17099]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has received representations about publishing the minutes of the Advisory Group on Veterinary Residues. Some of the deliberations of the Advisory Group involved consideration of confidential matters. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate is considering how the minutes might be released while maintaining confidentiality.

Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make a decision on the application from Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. to increase the level of radioactive waste the company is permitted to discharge. [17336]

Mr. Meacher [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, in England and Wales, the Environment Agency has the responsibility for considering applications to dispose of radioactive waste. The Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health have certain powers under the Act to decide applications themselves or to give directions to the agency. The Secretaries of State have received requests to use their statutory powers in relation to the application by Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd. These requests are currently under consideration and a decision will be reached as soon as possible.

27 Nov 2001 : Column: 851W

The Environment Agency has published its proposed decision on the application. This will not, however, be implemented before the Secretaries of State have decided whether to intervene.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to WPQ numbers (a) 12430 and (b) 12431. [17828]

Mr. Meacher: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him on 19 November 2001, Official Report, columns 66–67W.

Bovine TB

Mr. Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the action the Government are taking on bovine TB with special reference to the dairy herds in Herefordshire. [18080]

Mr. Morley: TB testing has resumed in those counties in England that have foot and mouth disease free status and where resource can be released from foot and mouth disease work. It has restarted in Herefordshire and is being prioritised based on veterinary risk assessment. Extra staff have been allocated to the work but it will take time to clear the backlog and get back to normal patterns of TB testing.

So far testing has not revealed any unusual incidence in the number of TB breakdowns in dairy herds in Herefordshire. However it must be borne in mind that during the last nine months reactors have only been revealed where tests have been carried out as a result of slaughterhouse cases or where LVI practices have managed to do some of the backlog of high priority testing.

Pesticide Residues

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 250 g samples of withdrawal diet were obtained from the feeding system for poultry by category in the United Kingdom in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (v) 2001; and what proportion was contaminated. [17100]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Poultry feed is sampled as part of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's (VMD's) Statutory National Surveillance Scheme, in accordance with the requirements of EU Directive 96/23. Samples of feed are tested for banned hormones agonists and Annexe IV substances, which includes dimetridazole. Sampling is not restricted to withdrawal diet.

The results show that in 1998, 11.3 per cent.; in 1999, 0.4 per cent. and 2000, 2.6 per cent. of poultry feed samples contained residues of dimetridazole. Sampling so far in 2001 has found no residues of dimetridazole.

The results for 1998–2000 were fully reported in the relevant Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Medicine Residues. Results for 2001 are reported in the VMD's MAVIS publication, which is regularly updated on the VMD website.

27 Nov 2001 : Column: 852W

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) of 29 October 2001, Official Report, columns 543–44W, if she will list the level and type of pesticides that tested above levels deemed safe for human consumption in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001 to date. [17301]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Full details of all the samples containing residues above the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable intakes are contained in the following reports:

1998: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 4546A and B.

1999: Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) Annual Report: PB 5181 A and B.

2000: Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) Annual Report.

2001: the results for the first quarter were published in August this year. They are available on the PRC website, at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm. The WPPR and PRC reports are also available on this website and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

An MRL is not a consumer safety level as such. It is based on residue levels which result from the approved use of a pesticide (i.e. Good Agricultural Practice; GAP) and are set at a level which is as low as possible while accommodating the GAP. However, MRLs are always set on the basis of consumer risk assessments. MRLs are never higher and are generally much lower than the maximum residue concentration considered to be acceptable.

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) of 29 October 2001, Official Report, columns 543–44W, what proportion of (a) vegetables, (b) fruit, (c) cereal products and (d) meat products available for consumption in the United Kingdom was sampled for pesticide residues in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2001 to date. [17300]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Details of the samples analysed under the Pesticide Residues Committee surveillance programme are contained in the following reports:


They are available on the PRC website, at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm. The WPPR and PRC reports are also available on this website and copies are being placed in the Library of the House. It is not possible to relate the samples collected to the proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test result relates is not recorded.

27 Nov 2001 : Column: 853W

The safety of any pesticide residue in a foodstuff depends not only on its concentration in that foodstuff but also on the consumption of that food by different groups of consumers. Potential intakes of the same residues from other foodstuffs also have to be taken into account. Consumer risk assessments are conducted in relation to all samples tested where a residue is found exceeding the relevant MRL.

Full details of all samples containing residues above the MRL and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable levels are contained in the annual report of the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) for 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, and in the first PRC quarterly report for the year 2001. Copies of these reports are available on the PRC website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/ prc.htm.

It is not possible to express these findings as a proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test samples relate is not recorded.

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), on 29 October 2001, Official Report, columns 543–44W, what proportion of (a) vegetables, (b) fruit, (c) cereal product and (d) meat products available for consumption in the United Kingdom were found to contain pesticide residues above a level deemed safe for human consumption in the last 12 months. [17229]

Mr. Morley [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Controls on pesticide residues in food are based on a system of statutory maximum residue levels (MRLs). MRLs are set for particular pesticide active ingredients on particular foodstuffs. MRLs are not safety levels but are established on the basis of the approved use of the active substance. They are generally set at levels lower than is necessary for safety purposes to ensure that only the minimum necessary pesticide dose is applied.

The safety of any pesticide residue in a foodstuff depends not only on its concentration in that foodstuff but also on the consumption of that food by different groups of consumers. Potential intakes of the same residues from other foodstuffs also have to be taken into account. Consumer risk assessments are conducted in relation to all samples tested where a residue is found exceeding the relevant MRL.

Full details of all samples containing residues above the MRL and those where a consumer risk assessment indicated that intakes for certain consumer groups could exceed acceptable levels are contained in the annual report of the Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) for 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, and in the first PRC quarterly report for the year 2001. Copies of these reports are available on the PRC website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/ prc.htm.

27 Nov 2001 : Column: 854W

It is not possible to express these findings as a proportion of UK foodstuffs consumed since the size of the consignment to which the test samples relate is not recorded.

Next Section Index Home Page