| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Jan 2003 : Column 233W—continued
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Air Quality (Lancashire)
Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent figures are for air quality in Lancashire. [88651]
Alun Michael: Defra currently operates two automated, continuous air quality monitoring sites in Lancashire: one in Preston, the other in Blackpool. These sites measure carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, ozone, particulate matter (PM10 ), and sulphur dioxide. Current and historic air quality information from these sites is available at Defra's air quality archive, www.airquality.co.uk. The information is updated hourly.
In 2002 all automated measurements of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide were in the 'low' category of air pollution. 'High' levels of PM10 occurred at Preston on one day in 2002, where levels peaked at 80 micrograms per cubic metre. 'Moderate' levels of PM10 were recorded at Preston on three days in 2002. 'Moderate' levels of PM10 were measured at Blackpool on one day in 2002, peaking at 51 micrograms per cubic metre. 'Moderate' levels of ozone were measured in Preston on 47 separate days in 2002, peaking at 67 parts per billion. In Blackpool, 'moderate' levels of ozone were measured on 62 separate days in 2002, peaking at 78 parts per billion. Data for 2002 are provisional. Definitions of 'low', 'moderate' and 'high' pollution levels are provided at Defra's air quality archive.
Bird Registration
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, what the significant increase in enforcement action was that caused the increase in costs of running her Department's bird registration scheme between 2000–01 and 2001–02; how
8 Jan 2003 : Column 234W
many police forces were involved; and how many (a) pending court cases and (b) convictions have resulted from this action. [89282]
Mr. Morley: The increase in enforcement costs from 2000–01 to 2001–02 was due partly to increased pay and overhead costs and partly to the recruitment of a number of new inspectors to widen the spread of expertise available to the Department.
Increased enforcement does not necessarily result in a higher number of court cases as the chief aim of the wildlife inspectors is to deter crime. The number of pending court cases and convictions and the number of police forces involved in taking them forward in 2000–01 and 2001–02 were as follows:
| 2000–01 | 2001–02 | |
|---|---|---|
| Pending cases | 0 | 3 |
| Convictions | 3 | 1 |
| Police forces | 3 | 1 |
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 312W, on bird registration, what evidence she collated that de-registration of bird species currently listed on schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will not lead to an increase in illegal taking from the wild; and what assessment her Department has made of the cost implications for (a) enforcement and (b) conservation agencies of de-registration. [89283]
Mr. Morley: The reason for the consultation was to obtain views and evidence on the possible impact of any changes to Schedule 4. We are still analysing the responses.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the likely impact on the United Kingdom peregrine falcon population of removing that species from schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [89284]
Mr. Morley: No assessment has been made. The development of any future proposals for species to be excluded from Schedule 4 would be accompanied by an
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, what percentage of her Department's bird registration fees were paid by birdkeepers in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 2001–02. [89285]
Mr. Morley: In 1991–92, 33 per cent. of the costs of providing the service were recovered and 2001–02, 14 per cent. of costs were recovered.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, whether changes were made to the fees charged following the consultation on Review of Bird Registration and CITES licensing fees undertaken in July 1999. [89286]
8 Jan 2003 : Column 235W
Mr. Morley: No changes were made to any fees following the consultation on the review of bird registration and CITES licensing fees undertaken in 1999 because of concerns expressed by consultees.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 December 2002, Official Report, column 311W, on bird registration, how many birds were registered with her Department's bird registration scheme in (a) 1991–92 and (b) 2001–02; and what cost savings her Department has made in the running of the scheme following the 1994 review of Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [89287]
Mr. Morley: The Department no longer holds data on how many birds were registered in 1991–92. Before the changes to Schedule 4 in 1993 there were 19,466 birds registered. At 1 January 2002, 6,918 birds were registered.
In 1991–92 the total costs of Bird Registration were #309,769 and in 2001–02 total costs were #441,557. Because of changes to the species and numbers of birds being registered it is impossible to assess meaningful figures for savings achieved.
Coley
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mechanism is for the disposal of diseased coley taken from within salmon cages; and what assessment she has made of the effect diseased coley has on domestic farm animals in Shetland. [88723]
Mr. Morley: The disposal of diseased fish from fish farming operations in Great Britain must be carried out in accordance with the Animal By-Products Order 1999 (SI 1999/646). The disposal of diseased fish in Shetland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
Fisheries
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the terms of fisheries quota swaps undertaken between Spain and Portugal for Western Waters in 1996. [88197]
Mr. Morley: I regret that this information is not centrally available.
Hunting
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of who will take over the role of disposing of fallen stock if the number of hunts are reduced as a consequence of the bill. [89011]
Alun Michael: The European Union's Animal By-products Regulation will ban routine on-farm burial and burning of animal carcases from 30 April 2003. This will mean that the existing fallen stock service provided by a number of hunts could only continue with considerable investment in new equipment. So the future of the hunts' service is in doubt irrespective of the
8 Jan 2003 : Column 236W
Hunting Bill. The Government has been holding discussions with the livestock and disposal industry with the aim of developing a national fallen stock scheme.
Marine Wildlife
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to secure greater protection for marine wildlife. [88862]
Mr. Morley: The Government's first Marine Stewardship Report, XSafeguarding our Seas", was published in May 2002. It sets out our strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of the marine environment and reiterated the commitment made at the 5th North Sea Conference to establish a network of well-managed marine protected areas by 2010.
The Report contained a package of initiatives to better protect marine wildlife. In particular, it confirms our commitment to consult on the Regulations to extend the Habitats Directive out to the limit of jurisdiction of UK waters. We are also finalising our UK-wide Small Cetacean Bycatch Response Strategy. This will identify what measures can be taken to reduce the incidental capture of small cetaceans in fishing nets.
In addition, our Review of Marine Nature Conservation is currently examining how effectively the current system for marine nature conservation is working and how improvements might be made where conservation objectives are not being met.
Nobel House
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method document has been prepared for the refurbishment of Nobel House. [89079]
Alun Michael: The latest refurbishment in Nobel House was for areas of the sixth and eighth floors. This was undertaken for MAFF in 1997. As only parts of floors were refurbished it was concluded that it would not be appropriate to seek a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) assessment. In the summer of 2002 Xfit out" work was undertaken to allow Defra to occupy the top four floors of 9 Millbank, which is next door to Nobel House. Again, it was concluded that it would not be appropriate to seek a BREEAM assessment because Defra are not responsible for the building fabric and the building services; these remain the responsibility of the major occupier, Ofgem. Defra does seek BREEAM assessments for the major new or refurbishment schemes for which we are responsible.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |