| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 Nov 2003 : Column 5W—continued
Foot and Mouth
Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the farms in the Alnwick area of Northumberland declared to be infected places in the foot and mouth epidemic were subsequently found to have no positive blood test results. [135916]
Mr. Bradshaw: Information relating to individual premises or farms is held by Defra in strict confidence and, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, cannot be released. Statistical information below county level cannot be released for the same reason, as it may enable premises to be identified. I can, however, report that in Northumberland, during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 75 out of 88 infected premises were sampled and 17 returned negative results.
A negative lab result does not mean that infection was absent. Each case was confirmed on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease by the vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence.
Landfill
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidents of pollution from landfill sites have been investigated in each of the last three years; how many prosecutions resulted; and what amount of fines was levied. [136110]
Mr. Morley: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30 October 2003, Official Report, column 374W. All of the incidents referred to in that reply were investigated by the Environment Agency.
10 Nov 2003 : Column 6W
Large Combustion Plant Directive
Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which United Kingdom power stations have been granted derogation from the Large Combustion Plant Directive. [136025]
Mr. Bradshaw: So far the revised Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) has been implemented in the UK only for plants subject to it that were first licensed after July 1987, and it will not apply to other plants until 1 January 2008. Derogations under the Directive for these plants will be a matter for Environment Agency in England and Wales and their equivalents in rest of the United Kingdom. Operators of plants licensed before July 1987 may apply for a limited hours derogation before 30 June 2004. Such a derogation would allow the plant to be exempt from complying with the emission limits or the national emission reduction plan established under the Directive, but it would mean that the plant could operate for no more than 20,000 operational hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015. Other applications for derogations would be made nearer the time that the Directive applies.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive in the north-east region. [136026]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) applies thoughout the United Kingdom. It has already been implemented for plants first licensed after July 1987. The Government have just completed a consultation on proposals to implement this Directive for plants first licensed before July 1987. We are considering the responses to that consultation and the Government will take a decision shortly on the most appropriate implementation approach; whichever approach is adopted would apply in the north-east region.
Nuclear Waste
Mr. David: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had about the possible siting of a new nuclear waste facility. [136048]
Ozone Depleting Substances
Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of CFC have been collected and safely destroyed from the licensed facilities operating in the UK under EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances in each year since implementation of the regulations. [133302]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 30 October 2003]: We are currently collating the figures and we will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are available.
Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to public funds has been of implementing EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances in each year since implementation of the regulations. [133303]
10 Nov 2003 : Column 7W
Mr. Morley [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Most of the enforcement of EC Regulation 2037/2000 is carried out by agencies during the normal course of their duties. There are no estimates available of costs specifically related to this. The Environment Agency does not monitor the costs of implementing individual regulations. Charges are levied for applications and subsistence on waste management licences for storage and treatment sites and the Agency seeks to recover relevant costs, including site supervision.
However, with respect to waste implications of the Regulation, the principal public costs have fallen on local authorities. Local authorities in England received £40 million to assist with the costs of storing and processing refrigerators and freezers in 2002–03. This was in addition to £6 million provided for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002. Spending Review 2002 included future funding within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block which will be distributed through Formula Standard Shares (FSAs).
Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether local authorities are permitted to offer contracts for the purpose of compliance with EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances to licensed facilities whose recycling plants have not passed validation tests. [133305]
Mr. Morley [holding answer 30 October 2003]: This issue is regulated through the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which requires that the holder of waste: (a) may only pass it on to an authorised person such as a waste management licence holder or a person authorised for transport purposes, for example a registered carrier of controlled waste, and (b) should take all reasonable measures to prevent the fly tipping of waste or the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person.
Generally, a fridge recycler cannot treat fridges until the recycling plant has been licensed and validated. However, the recycler or another party might properly store such fridges at a licensed storage site, pending treatment. Up until October 2002, the Environment Agency allowed operators to make applications and store fridges pending their determination. A local authority, for instance, could lawfully establish contracts with such operators in the expectation that their fridges would not be treated immediately.
Parrett Catchment Project
Mr Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of capital funding from central government for the Parrett sluice is in 2003–04; and what role the Parrett catchment project has in the Parrett sluice. [136354]
Mr. Morley: Defra provides funding to operating authorities for capital flood defence schemes and related studies that meet set criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. No applications have been received for capital works on the Parrett Sluice, but I understand the Environment Agency will be seeking grant on related studies in 2003–04.
10 Nov 2003 : Column 8W
Defra has provided funding to the Environment Agency for both the preparation of a Catchment Flood Management Plan for the River Parrett and strategic studies for the Lower Parrett and Tone. I understand that the Agency are consulting on the outcome of those studies, and that the Parrett Sluice is one of the options being considered. However the flood management strategy for the Lower Parrett and Tone has yet to be submitted formally to Defra for consideration, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the options at this stage.
The Parrett Catchment Project is a partnership of all stakeholders with an interest on Flood Risk Management in the area, and will therefore be key to forming proposals which will be prepared by the Environment Agency.
Pesticides
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pesticides are approved for use in the UK; and how many have (a) full approval and (b) provisional approval. [137262]
Alun Michael: A total of 4,096 pesticides are approved for use in the UK. Of these, 2,783 hold full approval and 1,313 are provisionally approved.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment the Pesticides Safety Directorate has made of the safety of the use of pesticides in school grounds and playing fields. [137263]
Alun Michael: The assessment of the safety of the use of pesticides in school grounds and playing fields is covered by the specific assessments carried out by the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) when evaluating risks to human health prior to any decision to grant approval for the marketing and use of a pesticide.
There are an extensive range of legislative and administrative controls over the approval, storage, marketing and use of pesticides. Applicants for pesticide approvals must show that their products are effective, humane, and pose no unacceptable risks to human beings, non-target species, or the wider environment before approval will be granted. All pesticide manufacturers are required to provide a wide range of scientific data that are evaluated by scientific experts in the PSD or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). These evaluations are then scrutinised by the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), who make recommendations to Ministers. Only when the Ministers responsible for pesticides, are satisfied on the basis of this expert advice that a pesticide can be used without unacceptable risk to people, animals, and the environment, will approval be given to put it on the market.
As part of the risk assessment process, the exposure of bystanders and persons re-entering the treated area is considered. Specific estimates of potential dermal and inhalation exposure are made and the risk assessed directly.
10 Nov 2003 : Column 9W
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the pesticides in use in the United Kingdom which have only provisional approval have had this status for (a) one to three years, (b) three to five years and (c) more than five years; and if she will make a statement. [137264]
Alun Michael: As at 5 November 2003, of the pesticides currently holding provisional approval status in the UK,
- (a) 450 have been provisionally approved for periods of one to three years;
- (b) 308 have been provisionally approved for periods of three to five years;
- (c) 344 have been provisionally approved for more than five years.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the amounts of pesticides used in grain stores in the United Kingdom. [137266]
Alun Michael: Assessments of the amounts of pesticides used in grain stores are carried out every four years, as a part of the Government's regular programme of surveys of pesticide use.
The most recent published results relate to grain harvested in 1998 and stored in the 1998–99 season. In total 13.31 tonnes of pesticides were used to treat the fabric of buildings, and 10.95 tonnes were used to treat stored grain.
The survey has been repeated for grain harvested in 2002 and stored in the 2002–03 season. Data from this survey are currently being assessed and it is expected that the results will be published early in 2004.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures her Department has for monitoring the use of pesticides in food produce entering the United Kingdom. [137268]
Alun Michael: Pesticide residues in both imported and domestically-produced food are controlled through UK Regulations, which lay down Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticide/commodity combinations covering the components of the UK diet.
The Government's monitoring programme for pesticide residues in both home produced and imported food is overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC), Some 4,105 food samples were analysed in 2002 for a wide range of pesticides with the result that the number of individual pesticide/commodity combinations analysed was in excess of 180,000. The proportion of imports in each survey varies depending on the balance of imports and domestic produce on the market. Overall in 2002, 52 per cent. of the samples tested were imports.
All the monitoring results are published on a website:
www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which EU countries impose a pesticide tax; and at what levels. [137286]
10 Nov 2003 : Column 10W
Alun Michael: We are aware of pesticide taxes in Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden. To the best of our knowledge, the current tax rates applied are:
Two hundred and forty eight euros per kg of active ingredient for non-agricultural uses of pesticides containing atrazine, diuron, isoproturon, simazine and pentachlorophenol.
Tax levied as a percentage of retail price excluding VAT.
Insecticides attract a 54 per cent. tax, herbicides 33 per cent. and non-agricultural pesticides 3 per cent.
Seven tax bands for different active ingredients. Tax rate ranges from zero to about Euro1.68 euros per kg.
Basic rate is NOK 15 per treated hectare multiplied by a banding factor of 0.5, 1, 4 or 8.
SEK 20 per kg of active ingredient.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |