| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Feb 2003 : Column 87W—continued
Fly-tipping
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy on fly-tipping on forest land is (a) generally and (b) where it is owned by the City of London Corporation; what her policy is in cases where it is her opinion that (i) a local authority and (ii) the Environment Agency should make greater efforts to remove fly-tipped rubbish from forest land; and if she will make a statement. [98163]
Mr. Meacher: Fly tipping is the same offence no matter where it occurs and the Government do not have different policies on clearing fly tipped waste from different types of land. Powers are provided to both local authorities and the Environment Agency under Section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to allow them to clear fly tipped waste and to recover the costs of doing so from either the perpetrators of the crime or the occupants of the land unless they can demonstrate that they did not knowingly allow or permit the fly tipping to take place.
The circumstances in which (i) the local authority and (ii) the Environment Agency should clear the waste are set out in the fly tipping protocol which has been agreed between the Local Government Association and the agency. Under the protocol, local authorities deal with fly tipping of non-special waste, and the agency deals with fly tipping of special/ hazardous waste.
24 Feb 2003 : Column 88W
The Government are keen to do more to empower both local authorities and the agency to deal with fly tipping on all forms of land, since we recognise that it is a growing anti-social problem. We are currently considering bringing forward changes to legislation in consultation with other Government Departments, the local government associations and the agency.
Heathrow (Emissions)
Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual emission was of (a) NOx, (b) SOx, (c) particulates and (d) CO2 at London Heathrow Airport in the last year for which figures are available. [98009]
Alun Michael: The following table shows estimated emissions of NOx, SOx, particulates (PM10 ), and CO2 for London Heathrow Airport in 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available).
| Tonnes | |
|---|---|
| NOX (nitrogen dioxide) | 8,949 |
| SOX (sulphur dioxide) | 414 |
| CO2 (carbon dioxide) | 1,397,770 |
| Particles (as PM10 ) | 102 |
Source:
National Environment Technology Centre. These cover emissions from aircraft and airside vehicles within the perimeter of the airport. Emissions are calculated from aircraft movement data for the airport in 2000 and aircraft emission factors used in the 1998 Heathrow Inventory study. Aircraft emissions during complete take off and landing cycle up to1,000 m are allocated to the airport. Consequently a proportion of the emissions are emitted at some height and horizontal distance from the boundaries of the airport.
Hunting Bill
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had about re-housing hunt workers of hunts which fail to achieve registration under the Hunting Bill; [96860]
- (2) what estimate she has made of the housing consequences of the Hunting Bill. [96859]
Alun Michael: It is not possible to predict the precise impact of the Hunting Bill on housing.
Where the activity is banned absolutely, as in the case of deer hunting and hare coursing, it would be prudent of employers and employees affected to plan for that eventuality and to seek out the available assistance.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the human rights implications of the prohibition of hunting where there are subsisting contracts for providing hunting facilities; [96870]
- (2) whether she has identified obstacles to certifying that the Hunting Bill does not conflict with human rights; and if she will make a statement; [96918]
(3) what representations she has received about the human rights implications of the Hunting Bill. [96869]
24 Feb 2003 : Column 89W
Alun Michael: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has signed a statement, under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, that in her view the provisions of the Hunting Bill are compatible with the Convention rights on the basis that she was satisfied no obstacles prevented her from so doing.
It is the Government's view that the requirements of the Hunting Bill would, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, amount to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than a deprivation of property, and that accordingly no compensation should be payable for any economic losses that may be suffered as a consequence of the Bill by the persons concerned.
There are numerous occasions where new legislation interferes with existing contractual rights without the individuals being compensated. In this respect the Government consider that persons entering contracts in connection with hunting with dogs have no legitimate expectation that any or all types of this activity would continue to be lawful. The contracting parties will have been aware for a considerable period of time of the intention of the Government to legislate on hunting with dogs, and the present Bill is the result of an extensive and well-publicised process of consultation over a long period.
The detailed reasons for this view are set out in a memorandum submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 31 January 2003 in response to a letter from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Minister for Rural Affairs of 21 January 2003. The Committee indicated that, subject to this point, their provisional opinion was that the present Hunting Bill is compatible with the relevant human rights obligations.
Representations on the Hunting Bill which relate to human rights issues have been couched in general terms and have included the suggestion that the continuation of traditional forms of hunting is or should be protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. There have also been references to the rights protected by the United Kingdom's international commitments under the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, in particular Principle 22 which refers to the role indigenous people and their communities play in relation to environmental management and development. Other representations have argued that there is no right to be cruel.
Landfill
Mr. Robert Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when and how the Government informed the European Commission of its intention to postpone the attainment of the targets set out in Article 5.2 of the Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste. [89274]
24 Feb 2003 : Column 90W
Mr. Meacher: Under the terms of the Landfill Directive, those member states who are to make use of the derogation to postpone the attainment of the reductions in the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste targets by a period not exceeding four years shall inform the Commission in advance. The final decision on whether we will make use of the derogation will be taken the year before each target year (2005 for target year 2006, 2008 for 2009 and 2015 for 2016). If the decision is to make use of the derogation for that target year, then the Commission will be informed accordingly.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department is preparing to implement the Landfill Directive by 2016. [96469]
Mr. Meacher: Yes, preparations are in hand to support our aim of meeting the Landfill Directive's final biodegradable municipal waste reduction target by 2016.
Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the operator for the Wortley tip at the Cabbage Hill site in the Leeds, West constituency has submitted a conditioning plan to the Environmental Agency; and whether it has applied to operate as a hazardous waste site. [96964]
Mr. Meacher: No; the operator has not submitted a conditioning plan for this site and has therefore not applied to operate as a hazardous waste site.
A list of all those landfill operators who have submitted a conditioning plan to the Environment Agency is available on the agency website at www.environment-aqency.gov.uk .
Radioactive Material
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the free release of radioactive material; what thresholds apply to such releases; and what quantities have been released in each year since 1997. [97714]
Mr. Meacher [holding answer 13 February 2003]: Responsibility for the policy with respect to radioactivity in the environment rests with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Under section 13 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA 93) the disposal of radioactive material requires authorization. The regulation of radioactive waste, under RSA 93, in England and Wales, is the responsibility of the Environment Agency and a system of "discharge authorizations" is used to control the nature and quantities of radioactive waste that may be discharged into the environment from any site. However, under the Radioactive Substances (Substances of Low Activity) Exemption Order 1986 solid radioactive waste that is substantially insoluble in water and that has activity of less than 0.4 Becquerel/gram is exempt from the controls under RSA 93, so-called "free release". As such waste is exempt from regulatory control, no centrally held records are kept of the quantities that have been released.
24 Feb 2003 : Column 91W
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been conducted (a) by and (b) for her Department on the effectiveness of RIMNET 3; and if she will place copies of such research in the Library. [93273]
Mr. Meacher: The Radioactive Incident Monitoring Network (RIMNET) Phase 3 system is currently under development, as explained in my previous answer on 20 January 2003, Official Report, column 105W.
The specification for RIMNET 3 was based upon the proven functionality of the RIMNET Phase 2 system, which continues to meet maintenance contract targets in excess of 99 per cent. reliability. This is through in depth design features which provide the necessary levels of resilience, including backup facilities at a remote location. Remote in this sense, means far removed from the main facility, yet accessible to authorised users via modern electronic communications. Assessment of the effectiveness of the RIMNET 3 system will be undertaken during its development and the acceptance trials. RIMNET 3 is currently scheduled to come into full operation and take over from RIMNET 2 in early 2004.
Summaries of radiation monitoring data held on the RIMNET system are regularly sent to the House Library and are also published in departmental environmental statistical summaries.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the present discharge unit is for technetium-99; what the analysis of levels of discharge over the last 12 months shows; and what progress has been made in considering the Department's response to recommendations by the Environment Agency in respect of discharge limits. [96518]
Margaret Beckett: The present discharge limit for technetium-99 is 90 TBq/year. In the 12 month period to the end of November 2002, the most up-to-date information currently available, 84.3 TBq of technetium-99 were discharged.
On 11 December 2002 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I (the two Ministers with joint responsibility under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993) announced that we saw no reason to direct the Environment Agency to take a different course to the one that the agency had identified in its proposed decision on technetium-99, published in September 2001. At the same time, I sought views on a proposal where I might direct the agency to consider the possibility of a moratorium on technetium-99 discharges pending introduction of TPP-based abatement technology. We are considering the representations received and hope to make a decision on the proposed direction shortly.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Government to publish national waste acceptance criteria. [96467]
24 Feb 2003 : Column 92W
Mr. Meacher: The Government will consult on the European Commission's obligatory waste acceptance criteria later this year as part of a wider consultation on amendments to the Landfill Regulations (England and Wales). (The waste acceptance criteria were introduced into the Landfill Directive by Decision C 20 E/171 of 28 January 2003 and must be transposed into UK legislation by 16 July 2004.) The amendments to the Landfill Regulations (England and Wales) introducing the waste acceptance criteria will be made following that consultation and before 16 July 2004.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |