---

7 May 2003 : Column 707W—continued

Fallen Wildlife

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the bio-security risk of fallen wildlife in the countryside. [108800]

Mr. Morley: No formal assessment has been made of the bio-security risks of fallen wild animals in the countryside. The carcases, or parts of carcases, of wild animals will be exempt from the scope of the Animal By-Products Regulation unless they are thought to be diseased or are used to produce game trophies. Although the Regulation places them under no legal obligation,

7 May 2003 : Column 708W

owners of property on which there are dead wild animals are advised to contact their local authority for advice on appropriate disposal methods.

In some parts of the country, (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire), badgers may be infected with TB. In these areas, those who find dead badgers are advised to contact their local Animal Health Office who may wish to test the carcase for TB.

Farm Subsidies

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 14 April 2003, Official Report, columns 479–80W, on farm subsidies, what proportion of production-linked subsidy payments have been redirected into rural development measures since 2001. [110876]

Mr. Morley: The Common Agricultural Policy Horizontal Regulation (Reg.1259/99) enables member states to redirect up to 20 per cent. of CAP direct subsidy payments for the purpose of co-financing new expenditure on the so-called 'accompanying measures'—essentially, in England, the agri-environment schemes and farm woodlands.

The Government's policy of modulating production-based subsidy payments into rural development was first introduced in the UK in 2001 at a relatively low, flat rate of 2.5 per cent. following full consultation. The rate, which under existing legislation will rise progressively to 4.5 per cent. by 2005, rose to 3 per cent. in 2002 and again in 2003 to the current rate of 3.5 per cent.

Fast Food Outlets

Dr. Stoate: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it compulsory for fast food outlets and commercial kitchens to install (a) fat traps and (b) grease interceptors in their waste water discharge systems. [110678]

Mr. Morley: Sewerage undertakers have powers to control and reduce discharges of fat and oil into sewers. If they consider the discharge constitutes trade effluent, their consent is required in accordance with the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. The consent may set conditions and require the elimination or diminution of any specified constituent of the trade effluent before it enters the sewer. Such a discharge without the undertaker's agreement is a criminal offence.

If the sewerage undertaker does not classify the discharge as trade effluent, it is still an offence under section 111 of the 1991 Act, for a person to empty into a public sewer, or any drain or sewer connecting with a public sewer, any matter which is likely to injure the sewer or drain, to interfere with the free flow of its contents or to affect prejudicially the treatment and disposal of its contents. Any person who is found guilty of an offence is liable to a fine or imprisonment. I consider these statutory controls to be sufficient. We would expect sewerage undertakers to take action where a problem arose and to encourage appropriate preventative measures to stop problems arising from fat and oil entering the sewers.

7 May 2003 : Column 709W

Fisheries

Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Scottish based trawlers targeting whitefish using trawls with a minimum mesh size of 100mm have been recorded as fishing in the statistical rectangle 39E4 in the past three months. [109692]

Mr. Morley: Five Scottish based fishing vessels were recorded as targeting whitefish using trawls with a minimum mesh size of 100mm in rectangle 39E4 between 1 December 2002 and 28 February 2003.

Flood Defence

Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase funding to the Environment Agency for flood defence. [111658]

Mr. Morley: The outcome of last year's spending review for Government funding of all flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage Boards) was:

£ million

Year	Defra	ODPM
2003–04	(10)114	295
2004–05	129	332
2005–06	154	382

⁽¹⁰⁾ Since increased to £136 million from within Defra's overall provision

Defra's allocation to the Environment Agency in 2003–04 for capital grants and contributions to national initiatives is £69 million. Based on all authorities' current forecasts, indicative allocations to the Agency in 2004–05 and 2005–06 are £80 million and £110 million respectively. However these indicative allocations will be subject to review in the light of updated forecasts from authorities. The ODPM funding is distributed to local authorities under the local government finance settlement and is used by them inter alia to fund the levies they pay to the Environment Agency. The levies paid to English Regions of the Agency total over £263 million in 2003–04.

The Government have announced their intention to convert these levies into a Defra block grant, though the timing for this has yet to be finalised.

Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department compiles records of flood reduction projects that have received the backing of (a) local authorities and (b) private companies, but have not proceeded because they fail the Environment Agency's cost benefit analysis. [111058]

Mr. Morley: All flood and coastal defence operating authorities (the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards) have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when investing taxpayers' funding. The rules which govern public sector investment are laid down by HM Treasury, but Defra has published guidance on how these can be met

7 May 2003 : Column 710W

for flood and coastal defences. Data are not maintained on proposed flood alleviation projects which are not economically worthwhile.

Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations the Environment Agency has received from groups representing local government seeking a change to the system of cost benefit analysis used in flood reduction work. [111071]

Mr. Morley: Such representations would be directed to Defra, rather than the Environment Agency, as it is this Department which provides guidance on the economic appraisal of flood and coastal defence schemes. A number of representations were received during the consultation on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review and these will be considered for the next review of our guidance. Any proposed changes would be subject to consultation with the industry at large, and with HM Treasury as appropriate.

Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 2 April 2003, Official Report, column 764W, on flood reduction, whether the Environment Agency changes the cost benefit analysis used in assessing flood reduction works when local authorities and private companies have also agreed to provide funding for the project. [111072]

Mr. Morley: As explained in my previous answer, (2 April 2003, Official Report, column 764W), it is often incorrect to deduct contributions from the cost of a flood defence project in assessing its economic viability. However, the issue needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Relevant guidance on the treatment of contributions is contained in Defra's publication, "Flood and Coastal Project Appraisal Guidance—Economic Appraisal (FCDPAG3)".

Fly-tipping

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what (a) the average level of fine imposed on those found guilty of fly-tipping and (b) the maximum fine imposable on those found guilty of fly-tipping are; and how many people were found guilty of fly-tipping in each of the last five years. [111040]

Mr. Meacher: Information is not available in the format requested as data on fly tipping prosecutions are not currently collected centrally. However, the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill currently before Parliament includes a provision which, if successful, will mean that these type of data will be recorded in the future.

We do have some information from the Environment Agency on the cases with which it has dealt. The average level of fine imposed for waste handling offences which it has prosecuted has increased from £1,132 in 1996–97 to £3,004 in 2001–02.

The maximum fine for those found guilty of fly tipping can be up to £20,000 and two years imprisonment for incidents involving non-hazardous waste and unlimited fines and five years imprisonment for incidents involving hazardous waste.

7 May 2003 : Column 711W

The Environment Agency has data for the 1999, 2000, and 2001 calendar years, but these relate to the number of offenders prosecuted for the offence of unlawfully depositing waste as described by section 33(1 )(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Similarly, prosecution data for the 1998–99 financial year are available, but relate only to section 33 offences generally.

Data are provided on this basis.

Offences for breach of all of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

1998–99—367

All offences under s33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

1999—141 (117 individuals; 24 businesses)

2000—206 (170 individuals; 36 businesses)

2001—225 (187 individuals; 38 businesses)

Offences under s33(1)(a)— fly tipping only

2002—70 (59 individuals; 11 businesses)

2003 to date—7 (4 individuals; 3 businesses)

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate she has made of the extent of fly-tipping; and if she will make a statement. [111160]

Mr. Meacher: There are currently no national data available on the extent of fly-tipping, as statistics on fly tipped waste are not collected centrally. We are hoping to remedy this situation by means of a clause that has been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill currently before Parliament. If successful, the provision will require the Environment Agency and local authorities to submit annual data returns to the Secretary of State on the categories and quantities of fly tipped waste with which they deal.

The Environment Agency has been operating a national incident recording system for the last two years. On the basis of its knowledge, it has estimated that there are approximately 50,000 fly-tipping incidents each year costing approximately £100 million.

---