| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 475W—continued
Office of Water Services
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in the Office of Water Services in each year since 1991–92; and if she will make a statement. [105130]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The figures relate to full-time equivalent members of staff employed in the Office of Water Services.
| As at 31 March | Number |
|---|---|
| 1992 | 129 |
| 1993 | 150 |
| 1994 | 178 |
| 1995 | 167 |
| 1996 | 190 |
| 1997 | 177 |
| 1998 | 180 |
| 1999 | 211 |
| 2000 | 198 |
| 2001 | 210 |
| 2002 | 217 |
| 2003 | 233 |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 476W
Pesticides
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2003, Official Report, column 1148W, on pesticides, for what reasons the use of metalaxyl and permethrin were rescinded by the EU; and for what reasons they remain approved in the UK. [103645]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 20 March 2003]: Under Directive 91/414/EEC all pesticides which have been on the market since July 1993 will be reviewed to ensure they continue to meet modern safety standards. Decisions have already been taken to revoke the approval for a number of substances including metalaxyl and permethrin.
In the case of metalaxyl the main approval holder withdrew its support for commercial reasons in favour of a newer pesticide, metalaxyl-m. As a result other notifiers wishing to support the pesticide through the EU Review no longer had access to all the necessary data. The Commission, therefore, took the decision to withdraw metalaxyl at a meeting in October 2002. Once the Commission Decision has been published in the Official Journal Member States will have six months from the date of publication to withdraw approvals.
Permethrin was also not supported through the EU Review for commercial reasons. As a result approvals for permethrin were revoked in 2001 with the exception of forestry uses. In recognition of the fact that permethrin has important uses in forestry and there are currently no alternatives available the Commission has allowed this use only to continue until 31 December 2003 at the latest.
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2003, how many residues of the substances have been found in foodstuffs, by type, since the rescinding of their use; what proportion of residues were found in foodstuffs from (a) the UK and (b) abroad; and what actions were taken as a result. [103689]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 20 March 2003]: Of the 22 substances listed in the reply of 11 March, of residues, only five of them have been detected since their approval was rescinded. The results are as follows:
28 Mar 2003 : Column 477W
Of the 26 residues found, eight (31 per cent.) were of UK origin and 18 (69 per cent.) were imported.
No further action was taken as none of the residues found exceeded permitted maximum residue levels (MRLs) and risk assessments conducted showed that there were no concerns for human health.
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 11 March 2003, Official Report, columns 145–7W, on pesticides, for what reasons the substances were rescinded; and how many of the substances are produced in the UK. [103690]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 20 March 2003]: Pesticides can have their approvals revoked for various reasons but in practice revocation mostly results because the approval holder takes a commercial decision to no longer market their products.
There have also been cases where approvals have been revoked because of either safety or environmental concerns. Those revoked in the UK as a result of the EU review programme are: lindane, quintozene, fentin hydroxide and fentin acetate.
Some active substances have also been banned under the EC "Prohibition Directive" due to their persistence in the environment. These include chlordane, 2-methoxymethylmercury acetate, mercuric oxide, mercurous chloride and phenylmercury acetate.
In the UK Anti-Cholinesterase Review carbofuran, chlorfenvinphos, disulfoton, etrimfos, propoxur, carbaryl, fenitrothion, heptenophos, ethiofencarb, mephosfolan, methomyl, phosalone, pyrazophos, trichlorfon, thiometon, diazinon and quinalphos were not supported. In the EU review the active substances not supported to date include ferbam, propham, benomyl, fenvalerate, monolinuron, tecnazene and zineb.
The approvals for products containing phorate were revoked in the UK because they did not comply with the EC Maximum Residue Regulations.
The Department does not hold details of those substances listed in our previous answer, given on 11 March, that are produced in the UK, as this information is not required for regulatory purposes.
Rivers (Eutrophication)
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of eutrophication in rivers. [104545]
Mr. Morley: On 27 June 2002, Official Report, columns 1005–06W, the Secretary of State announced the identification of a further 25 river bodies in England as Sensitive Areas (Eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations.
28 Mar 2003 : Column 478W
As a result discharges from relevant sewage treatment works to these areas will receive more stringent treatment by the end of 2008. This highest level of treatment involves reducing the amount of phosphorus in waste water discharges to limit eutrophication.
This announcement brought the total number of river and freshwater sensitive areas in England to 100 where further measures are being taken to protect and improve these waters.
Further control of industrial discharges to limit nutrient pollution that can contribute to eutrophication is applied by the Environment Agency through discharge consents.
Also, Defra is currently undertaking a review to identify the most cost effective action to reduce agricultural diffuse pollution of water and help to tackle eutrophication and other environmental problems in rivers and other waters.
State Veterinary Service
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to expand the State Veterinary Service. [104036]
Mr. Morley: There are currently no plans to expand the State Veterinary Service (SVS). The SVS running costs budget in 2003–04 is comparable with that for the year ending 31 March 2003.
Warm Front Grants
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will amend the rules governing eligibility for Warm Front grants to include the pensioner credit. [105255]
Mr. Morley: We intend to prepare changes to the Scheme Regulations to take account of the introduction of the Pension Credit in October 2003.
Water Industry
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure customers are not subject to blanket charges set by water companies to dispose of surface water. [104090]
Mr. Morley: Every water company must set out their charges in a charges scheme, approved by the Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) before they may be implemented. Charges for the disposal of surface water have, in the past, been shared by all sewerage customers. The then Secretary of State issued guidance to Ofwat in 2000 under the Water Industry Act 1999, supporting the provision of rebates for customers whose surface water does not flow into public sewers. Ofwat report that all companies now offer rebates.
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to ensure that consumers are provided with an explanation and breakdown of their waste water charges. [104091]
28 Mar 2003 : Column 479W
Mr. Morley: The Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) as the independent regulator, regulates companies' charges. The then Secretary of State gave guidance to Ofwat under the Water Industry Act 1999, that bills should explain to customers each element of the charge and set out the separate costs for each of these. Ofwat has undertaken monitoring exercises to ensure that all companies do so.
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to ensure Anglian Water repays its customers who overpaid the company when a water rate reduction was in place. [104092]
Mr. Morley: Neither Ofwat nor the Government can require water companies to offer retrospective rebates of surface water drainage charges for past years, provided such charges were made in accordance with legal requirements in force at the time.
Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next plans to meet representatives from Anglian Water to discuss (a) fair charging and (b) consumer concerns about a water rate reduction. [104105]
Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State meets water company representatives from time to time. At present, she has no plans to meet representatives from Anglian Water. Water companies charges are regulated by the Office of Water Services (Ofwat), which must, in turn, have regard to Government guidance. The guidance expects water charges to be fair and affordable, transparent and customer focused.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |