|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
12 Dec 2002 : Column 450Wcontinued
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what power the Chairman of the Parrett catchment project has to assist in setting the budget of the Environment Agency. 
Mr. Morley: The Parrett catchment project is an independent body. It is a local stakeholder group aiming to help the Environment Agency and others to direct investment in appropriate flood management and other measures to benefit the Parrett catchment area. This project has no part in setting budgets of the Environment Agency. Budgets for Environment Agency flood defence programmes are agreed by statutory Flood Defence Committees, including the Local Flood Defence Committee, which Mr. Humphrey Temperley also chairs. This is a separate role to his position as Chair of the Parrett catchment project.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines she follows on the reappointment of the Chairman of the Parrett catchment project when his term is ended. 
Mr. Morley: The Parrett catchment project is an independent body, as advised in my reply to the hon. Member's previous questions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in the appointment or reappointment of the Chairman of this project.
12 Dec 2002 : Column 451W
(a) volume by weight and (b) total value of the export from the United Kingdom of pesticides produced in the United Kingdom, broken down by those which are (i) legal and (ii) illegal to use within the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. 
Mr. Morley: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not hold any details in respect of the export of pesticides from Great Britain as such information is not required for the regulation of pesticides in this country.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations control United Kingdom companies' (a) production and (b) export of pesticides which would be classified as illegal to use within the European Union; what recent changes have taken place and are planned to these regulations; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Morley: The United Kingdom's pesticide legislation does not extend to the manufacture of pesticides or to those pesticides intended solely for exportation from the United Kingdom. The fact that a pesticide may not be approved in this country does not, in itself, prevent companies from selling such products in another country. The product would, of course, have to comply with the other country's own legislation.
The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, among other things, gives importing countries the choice to decide which hazardous chemicals they receive and exclude. At present the Convention covers 22 'banned' pesticides.
European Community Regulation 2455/92 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals provides for export notification procedures for other restricted substances and pesticides. Negotiations on a replacement for this regulation are in the final stages. I welcome these proposals which, as well as increasing the number of chemicals covered by the regulation, will also enable the European Community to approve the Rotterdam Convention and all member states to legally ratify it.
Mr. Meacher: Most of the glass recovered for recycling is in packaging. The tonnages of glass packaging waste recycled in the UK in the last few years show an upward trend, rather than a decrease. The figures are as follows:
12 Dec 2002 : Column 452W
(a) mobile phones and (b) printer cartridges were (i) recycled, (ii) reused overseas and (iii) disposed of within the UK waste stream in each year since 1990; 
Mr. Meacher [holding answer 11 December 2002]: There are no accurate figures on the number of mobile phones discarded in the UK, although it is estimated that around 15 million are replaced each year. An independent consumer survey carried out as part of a pilot study in 1997 for 'Mobile Take Back UK' shows that in the UK very few phones are actually discarded. The majority of people keep old phones, give them to relatives, or store them for emergency use. However, a number of schemes are now collecting mobile phones for refurbishment and recycling. A certain number of refurbished phones are also sold to eastern Europe, Asia and Africa where there is a strong second hand market.
Mr. Meacher: The 2002 Spending Review increased the local authority Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) spending block, which includes waste management. EPCS spending will increase by #671 million by 200506.
Over the same period, Defra has been allocated #355 million of future PFI credits for waste projects. This is around 60 per cent. more than the provision in SR2000. We will use these funds to help local authorities increase their recycling levels.
The 112 schemes that were approved in the first round of the ring-fenced National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund of #140 million for local authority recycling are now receiving funding and being put into action. A further 142 schemes have now been successful in the second round of bidding with funding amounting to 76.3 million next year.
In addition to these funds, following the publication of the report on waste by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, a ministerial group has been formed to take forward their recommendations, specifically including those relating to funding for waste.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the sites in the United Kingdom where untreated sewage is disposed of at sea from (a) short outfall pipes, (b) long outfall pipes and (c) shipping; what assessment of water quality has been made in each case; and what plans there are to strengthen treatment. 
12 Dec 2002 : Column 453W
Mr. Morley [holding answer 11 December 2002]: The question as it relates to Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations. For England and Northern Ireland the position is as follows.
Through our implementation of the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) significant improvements have and are being made to raise standards of sewage treatment. For example, as at 31 October 2002, 99 per cent. of sewage
12 Dec 2002 : Column 454W
discharges (539 of 544) from treatment works serving over 15,000 people in England received primary and secondary treatment.
The following table sets out the untreated discharges from communities with over 15,000 inhabitants in England and Northern Ireland, the length of their outfalls, an assessment of water quality (against the mandatory and guideline standards of the Bathing Waters Directive), and expected date for provision of primary and secondary treatment. These dates are dependent on the resolution of planning and/or funding issues.
|Discharge name||Outfall length||Water quality situation||Treatment expected (primary and secondary)|
|Bangor (NI)||Short||Regular passes of mandatory standard||December 2008|
|Brighton (E)||Long||Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards||June 2007|
|Donaghadee (Nl)||Short||No identified impact on receiving waters||December 2008|
|Hastings and Bexhill (E)||Long||Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards||March 2003|
|Larne (Sandy Bay) (Nl)||Short||Regular passes of mandatory standardalthough failed in 2002||September 2005|
|Margate and Broadstairs (E)||Long||Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards||March 2006|
|Portrush (Nl)||Short||Regular passes of mandatory standard||December 2008|
|Torquay (E)||Short||Regular passes of mandatory and guidelines standards||Early 2004|
As required by the directive we expected, by 31 December 2005, to provide secondary treatment for two discharges in Northern Ireland from communities with over 10,000 inhabitants, and appropriate treatment for 19 discharges below this threshold.
In England it is Government policy that all coastal discharges from communities with more that 2,000 inhabitants receive a minimum of secondary treatment. Consequently 20 discharges above this threshold are to receive this by 31 December 2005, and a further 22 below this threshold are to receive appropriate treatment.
The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) has an Annex on Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships. Although the UK ratified this Annex in 1995, it was not until 27 September 2002 that the entry into force requirements were met at the International Maritime Organisation. The UK has 12 months from that date to implement legislation bringing it into force.
The legislation will apply to new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above; new ships of less than 400 tonnage which are certified to carry more than 15 persons; existing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, five years after the date of entry into force of the Annex and existing ships of less than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry more than 15 persons, five years after the date of entry into force of the Annex.
Under the regulations, sewage can be discharged from ships using a treatment plant anywhere. Ships using a comminuting and disinfecting system can only discharge sewage more than three nautical miles from land. Sewage from a holding tank can only be discharged 12 nautical miles from land, at a moderate rate and when the ship is travelling at a speed of four knots or over. States can opt for less stringent discharge requirements in waters under their jurisdiction.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|