| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1012W—continued
Egg Printing
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her proposals for egg printing will allow printing to take place (a) on farm and (b) at processing factories; and if she will make a statement. [117140]
Mr. Morley: From 1 January 2004, EU rules will require all grade A hen eggs sold at retail level to be marked with an identifying code. This can be carried out either on the farm or at any approved packing centre. Eggs sold directly to the final consumer, to approved food manufacturers or to non-food establishments for processing will not have to be marked.
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the 1 January 2004 deadline for the introduction of egg printing; and if she will make a statement. [117141]
Mr. Morley: I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and individuals about the new rules which will require all grade A hen eggs to be marked with an identifying code from 1 January 2004 but none specifically about the implementation date. Departmental officials have been working closely with industry representatives and individual egg packers to advise on the new requirements and how best to meet them.
English Wine
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to promote English wine. [116466]
Mr. Morley: The Government fosters an environment which encourages English wine producers to innovate and exploit an expanding but highly competitive market. Close liaison between industry representatives and Defra is the cornerstone of this relationship. Officials meet regularly with the industry to discuss producer concerns, and to monitor the UK Quality and Regional Wine Schemes which were introduced by the
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1013W
Government to promote the quality and reputation of English wine. Defra also offers English wine at large functions that it hosts from time to time, and regularly attends industry organised events.
Fallen Stock
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the use of on-farm incinerators to dispose of fallen stock; and if she will make a statement. [117144]
Mr. Morley: The Department has had a number of discussions with interested parties regarding the impact of the new EU Animal By-Products Regulation and a proposal for a National Fallen Stock Collection and Disposal Scheme.
We are currently working with interested organisations, including incinerator manufacturers and end-users (such as farmers) on detailed guidance on implementation of the Regulation's controls on incinerators.
In the light of proposals for a national collection/disposal scheme, representations were made to confirm that on-farm incineration continues to be a permitted disposal route for fallen stock and that incinerator manufacturers were not placed at a commercial disadvantage.
Mr. Cameron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has for maintaining prices to be charged for removing fallen stock in the next five years; and if she will make a statement. [117145]
Mr. Morley: Charges for removal of fallen stock are a commercial matter between providers of fallen stock collection services and owners of the fallen stock.
The Government have proposed a national fallen stock subscription scheme which would include an element of Government subsidy on a degressive basis over 3 years. However, support for the proposed scheme has been disappointing and discussions continue about options in the light of this response.
Fisheries
Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what appeal process is available to communities affected by European Commission plans to remove their right to administer fish quota leasing schemes; [118307]
- (2) what representations her Department will make to the European Commission regarding plans to remove the right of communities to administer fish quota leasing schemes; [118308]
(3) when her Department received notification that the European Commission planned to remove the right of communities to administer fish quota leasing schemes. [118309]
Mr. Morley: The European Commission has been investigating the schemes in the Orkney and Shetland islands since 1999. The Commission's doubts about the compatibility of the schemes with the Treaty were made
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1014W
clear when it opened a formal investigation into the schemes in November 2001. In its two letters of 28 November 2001, one on each of the schemes, the Commission observed that there existed:
- "serious doubts on the compatibility of this aid scheme with the Guidelines for the examination of State aid to fisheries and aquaculture and, therefore, with the EC Treaty." (Official Journal C 38 of 12.02.2002 p.6 and p.11)
The Commission Decisions of 3 June 2003 constitute the formal view of the Commission on the non-compatibility of these schemes with the Treaty. They were received at the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU on 4 June and sent that day to my Department and to the Scottish Executive who sent them the next day to the local authorities concerned.
The Decisions require the schemes to be either ended or brought into compliance with the Treaty within two months. If this corrective action is not taken, the provisions of Article 88(2) of the Treaty and Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 allow the Commission to refer the United Kingdom's non-compliance to the European Court of Justice direct. In this case it would fall to the Government, not the administrators of the scheme, to defend or bring the case.
There is no specific appeal mechanism against Commission State aid Decisions. However, a member state or any natural or legal person may apply to bring an action before the European Court of Justice for annulment of a Decision on certain grounds listed in Article 230 of the Treaty.
In addition, the provisions of Article 88(2) of the Treaty permit a member state to apply in exceptional circumstances for approval of a State aid by the Council acting unanimously.
The Commission Decisions are still being considered. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and the local authorities involved.
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the basis was for her policy on invoking the Hague Preference, in the current year, to the UK's benefit in fish stocks; what stocks qualified for the Hague Preference but were not invoked; and who the beneficiaries and losers were in each case as a result of her policy. [116966]
Mr. Morley: The policy was, as usual, to invoke Hague Preference on stocks where the UK's quota allocation would otherwise fall below the trigger level. This involves, in particular, invoking to counteract the effect of Irish invocations of Hague Preference on the UK's allocation. However, we do refrain from invoking in some cases where stocks are seriously depleted, as in these cases the operation of Hague Preference would transfer a very high proportion of other member states' allocations to the UK. This is the approach that we judge to be, overall, to the benefit of UK fishermen. For 2003 we did not invoke Hague Preference for any of the depleted North Sea stocks or for saithe in Area VI (where there was no Irish invocation).
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1015W
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what EU competence exists over (a) fish, (b) shellfish, (c) other products of the sea, (d) related quotas and (e) regulation in the (i) six and (ii) 12 mile limits. [117999]
Mr. Morley: The European Union has exclusive competence over marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy. Within this framework, the CFP Regulation EC 2371/2002 allows member states to take non-discriminatory conservation measures, conforming with the CFP, up to 12 miles from the shore line.
Invasive Weeds
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assist those responsible for habitats where invasive non-native weeds are growing (a) to offset financial implications, (b) to install long-term plans to ensure these weeds are not just temporarily cleared but that all rhizomes are killed off and (c) to assist with safe disposal of cleared weeds to ensure that spread is not encouraged; and if she will make a statement. [117798]
Mr. Morley: The Department has no plans to provide specific funding to meet the costs for landowners of dealing with invasive non-native plants, although statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency, English Nature and local authorities may on occasion be involved with control projects.
Guidance on control and disposal of non-native plants is made available by the Environment Agency and English Nature. Fuller details are given in the response to my hon. Friend's separate question 117799. Waste containing Japanese knotweed is controlled under the Environment Protection Act 1990.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assist those responsible for habitats where invasive non-native weeds are growing; and if she will make a statement. [117799]
Mr. Morley: The Environment Agency and English Nature produce a range of guidance on controlling invasive non-native plants. The Environment Agency produces detailed guidance for landowners and managers on how to control a number of invasive species. In addition, English Nature has provided funding for 'The Invasive Alien Species' website (http://www.appliedvegetationdynamics.co.uk/IAAPwebsite/index.asp), which provides guidance for controlling problem species. Leaflets on invasive non-native pond plants produced jointly by English Nature, the Environment Agency and others also give guidance on control and on safe disposal to avoid further spread of the plants.
In addition, the Department has set up a working group to undertake a fundamental Review of Non-Native Species Policy. Its report, published on 28 March 2003, is available in the House library. It includes a range of measures for dealing with invasive non-native species. We are developing, in liaison with the Devolved Administrations, the Government response to the report, and there will be public consultation later this year.
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1016W
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had regarding the control of invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117801]
Mr. Morley: In March this year, the Department completed a Review of Non-native Species Policy. The Review involved discussions with other Government Departments, the Devolved Administrations, the statutory conservation agencies and representatives from the trade sector, animal welfare and conservation organisations. This included discussion of control of invasive non-native plants.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the role of educating gardeners and others in controlling invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117802]
Mr. Morley: The Department receives numerous representations on invasive non-native species. The Review of Non-native Species Policy reported that stakeholders, including gardeners, have a key role to play, for example, in avoiding further introductions of invasive non-native plants, and recommended a public education and awareness campaign. The Government are considering their response to the Review's report.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the costs of tackling invasive non-native weeds; and if she will make a statement. [117803]
Mr. Morley: The report of the Review of Non-native Species Policy provided rough cost estimates for national control programmes for various invasive species, including invasive non-native plants, by way of illustration of the issue. For example, the report included estimates that a national Japanese knotweed eradication programme using current techniques would cost approximately £1.56 billion. At this level of cost, national control programmes are unlikely to be feasible. This shows the importance of effective measures to prevent introductions. However, the Department is also contributing research into novel methods of control of Japanese knotweed, which may help reduce costs.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research has been done into effective methods of killing invasive non-native weeds with (a) chemicals available in garden centres to tackle weeds, (b) weedkillers which have now been withdrawn from general circulation and (c) chemical preparations available only to professionals; and what plans she has to reassess the status of the withdrawn chemical preparations if they are proved to be better at tackling the problem. [117804]
Mr. Morley: The Department has undertaken a number of research projects looking into the impact of the use of pesticides on weeds in, or around, agricultural and horticultural crops. The Environment Agency's leaflet on control of invasive non-native plants gives guidance on use of chemical control. Only one research project has specifically focussed on invasive non-native plants and this is investigating alternatives to chemicals. The Department is contributing with Cornwall county council, the Environment Agency and others, to
12 Jun 2003 : Column 1017W
research into biological control of one of the problem species—Japanese knotweed. The study will undertake the necessary research to establish whether biological control is a feasible method for the long-term, sustainable management of Japanese knotweed in the UK.
The Department is not undertaking any research into the effectiveness of withdrawn weedkillers to control invasive non-native plants. The UK's pesticide regulatory system allows for the granting of 'emergency' approvals whereby the marketing and use of plant protection products may be permitted, subject to an environmental risk assessment, for a limited period to control invasive non-native weeds if the threat they pose cannot be controlled by other means.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |