---

1 May 2003 : Column 470W—continued

Pesticide Residues

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 28 March, Official Report, column 476–7W, on pesticide residues, how many tests were carried out on (a) British foods and (b) imported foods; what proportion of samples were found to have residues of banned substances; and what proportion of samples were found to have excessive residues of (i) pesticides, (ii) fertilisers, (iii) fungicides and (iv) other synthetic crop enhancers. [108927]

Mr. Morley: During the seven year period in question (1995–2002) the total number of samples analysed for pesticide residues totalled around 24,000, of which around 14,000 were of UK origin and 10,000 were imported. Only 26 residues were found of the withdrawn substances listed in the reply of 11 March. 8 samples were of UK origin and 18 were imported. The proportion of samples containing residues of withdrawn substances were therefore 0.06 per cent. UK and 0.18 per cent. imported.

Over this period the proportion of samples with pesticide residues exceeding the maximum residue level averaged 1 per cent. The most recently published data

1 May 2003 : Column 471W

for 2001 indicate that this was based on 1 per cent. of imported samples and 0.5 per cent. of UK origin samples exceeding these levels. These figures relate to all pesticides including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and plant growth regulators. Detailed analysis of these figures by pesticide type and by year could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Residues of nitrates and other fertilisers, which may leave residues in crops, areissues for the (FSA) Food Standards Agency.

Pollution

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will attend the Environment for Europe ministerial meeting in Kiev in May; and if the UK will sign the UNECE Protocol or Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (Aarhus Convention) at that meeting. [110379]

Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will represent the UK at the Kiev Environment for Europe conference between 21 and 23 May 2003. The Government is considering its position in relation to all three protocols which will be opened for signature at Kiev including the Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers. I will write confirming the Government's position once this has been finalised.

Ruddy Duck

Joyce Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates have been made of the cost to her Department of the strategy to cull ruddy ducks. [110336]

Mr. Morley: I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 505W.

Snares

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the ability of a snare to discriminate between species. [110425]

Mr. Morley: No recent assessment has been conducted on the discernment of snares for species. However, free-running snares are designed to be a restraining device that is intended to slacken, not continually tighten, thus not causing bodily injury. They are not considered an indiscriminate means of either capture or killing provided they are set correctly and are checked every 24 hours.

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made as to the compatibility of the use of snares and the terms of the Bern Convention. [110426]

Mr. Morley: The Bern Convention is implemented in England through the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Free running snares are permissible under Section 11 of the 1981 Act provided that the snare is not placed in such a way to allow injury to any animal listed on

1 May 2003 : Column 472W

Schedule 6 of the 1981 Act, which includes badgers. Section 11(3) makes it an offence to set in position, or knowingly cause or permit to set in position, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal. The snare must also be inspected at least once every 24 hours, so as to avoid any animal held in the snare suffering unnecessarily through starvation or dehydration. All non-target species must be released from the snare.

Free-running snares are not considered an indiscriminate means of either capture or killing provided they are set correctly and are checked every 24 hours. They are designed to be a restraining device that is intended to slacken, not continually tighten, thus not causing bodily injury.

The purpose of Section 11 is to expressly prohibit the use of indiscriminate means of capture and killing, in accordance with our international obligations, under the Bern Convention. Penalties for offences under Section 11, including not checking snares and not releasing non-target species, include fines of up to £5,000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months for each offence.

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 27 March 2003, Official Report, column 310W, how and when her Department is considering ways in which to improve the correct use and effectiveness of snares; and whether this will include a public consultation. [110427]

Mr. Morley: The Department is currently undertaking discussions with various organisations on an informal basis. Once these discussions have been concluded we will be examining how to take this matter forward.

Sustainable Energy Partnership

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the progress of Cornwall's Sustainable Energy Partnership's Home Health programme operating in the districts of Kerrier and Penwith, with the support of regeneration funding, in respect of (a) the adequacy of the partnership of local organisations, (b) the method of securing new clients to the programme, (c) its success in geographical targeting and (d) its efforts to reassure clients of their domestic security. [109314]

Mr. Morley: We are aware of this project which receives funding through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and the Community Action for Energy Programme of the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes. An interim evaluation of the Home Health programme has just been completed on behalf of the Partnership and the findings will be considered by my Department.

TB Reactors

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what (a) steps have been taken and (b) outcomes achieved to reduce the time taken to remove cattle which have had a bovine

1 May 2003 : Column 473W

TB reactor from farms in (i) England, (ii) South-west region, (iii) Cornwall, (iv) Devon, (v) Gloucestershire and (vi) Staffordshire. [108797]

Mr. Morley: The information is as follows:

(a) The following steps have been taken by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) to reduce the time taken to remove TB reactors from farms:

Reminders have been issued to Veterinary Inspectors to submit TB test charts to the SVS without delay after TB tests have been carried out.

Additional staff have been employed in Animal Health Offices to help process TB tests charts.

The SVS has asked the National Audit Office, Internal Audit and consultant valuers to look at ways to reduce delays caused by the valuation process.

The SVS has opened up discussions with representatives of the slaughter industry to see if the current arrangements can be improved by better coordination of transport with the slots available at slaughterhouses.

(b) The SVS are currently undertaking a review of all their business processes. This review is still underway, and discussions such as those mentioned above are still taking place. It is too soon therefore to measure performance improvements.

A snapshot of the situation for the last quarter of 2002 is given in the table. Data are not available by county, but by Animal Health Divisional Office(AHDO). Figures for 2003 are not yet available.

	Number of reactors disclosed	Number of reactors removed from farm within 10 working days	Percentage of reactors removed from farm within 10 working days
England	5,373	1,235	23
SW Region(2)	4,592	829	12
Cornwall AHDO	811	31	4
Devon AHDO	1,062	369	35
Gloucester AHDO	1,265	150	12
Stafford AHDO(3)	600	265	44

⁽²⁾ The figures for SW region cover Exeter AHDO (Devon) Gloucester AHDO (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Avon), Taunton AHDO (Somerset and Dorset), Truro AHDO (Cornwall) and Worcester AHDO (Hereford and Worcester).

⁽³⁾ Stafford AHDO covers Staffordshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire

T3327

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the wild animal poison known as T3327 is species specific; and what assessment (a) she and (b) the Central Science Laboratory has made of the impact of it being consumed by (i) other wild mammals, (ii) escaped domestic mammals and (iii) wild birds. [108140]

Mr. Morley: T3327 is a shorthand code name for a carbamate and as such is not species specific, but is toxic to all animals. The trial site was carefully chosen and fully licensed under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) and by other relevant bodies (note: see replies to PQs 1608 and 1609). The Advisory Committee on Pesticides, made an assessment of the potential impact of the poison. The Central Science Laboratory, as the holder of the Experimental Permit and data owner, has agreed to copies of the environmental assessments being placed in the

1 May 2003 : Column 474W

Westminster parliamentary Library. During the field trial in 2002 there was no effect on other wild mammals (other than badgers), domestic mammals or wild birds. The baits are buried to reduce the chances of being found by domestic livestock and wild birds. A full report of the trial will be published in due course.

---