---

6 Jul 2004 : Column 629W—continued

Cormorants

Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to change the protection afforded to cormorants; and if she will make a statement. [181811]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects all wild birds including the cormorant. This Act implements the EC Wild Birds Directive in Great Britain. There are no plans to review the protected status of the cormorant.

However, we have accepted for some time that cormorants can and do cause damage to certain fisheries. For this reason the Department issues individual licences under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow cormorants to be killed or taken as an aid to scaring. It is our firm intention, and the legislation requires, that licences will not be issued to applicants who have not tried all reasonable non-lethal methods (such as refuges) to resolve problems. However, despite seeking alternative solutions, problems do persist in certain areas which is why we are actively considering measures that could help fishery owners and angling clubs deal with the increasing problem of predation by cormorants.

Deliberations are at an early stage but will include a basic review of the licensing system which may result in further limited and controlled killing of cormorants to aid scaring but without compromising the conservation status of the cormorant.

DecaBDE

Beverley Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the status is of the European Risk Assessment for DecaBDE; whether there are restrictions applied to the future use of this product; and whether the voluntary initiatives relating to this product are supported by the Government. [181803]

Alun Michael: An environmental risk assessment of deca-BDE has been carried out under the Existing
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 630W
 
Substances Regulation (EC) 793/93. At the EU Competent Authorities' meeting in Dublin on 26 May 2004 it was agreed that this assessment be closed and the risk assessment published. Part of the package put forward by the UK and agreed by other member states is that the monitoring programme and the product stewardship emission reduction programme be regularly audited and monitored, with the programme lasting six years with a possible extension to 10 years if necessary. The published risk assessment would be reviewed in light of any relevant new data in this monitoring period. Any future risk reduction action resulting from this new data and associated restrictions would be discussed and agreed. The UK Government supports both these initiatives.

France has led the risk assessment process addressing human health, and has not requested risk reduction activity, though they wish to see more data on neurotoxicity. The industry has agreed to conduct the appropriate studies.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people have left employment in her Department because of (a) anxiety, (b) stress, (c) depression and (d) other mental health reasons in each year since 1997. [175682]

Alun Michael: Defra does not hold information on the reasons why staff .leave the Department at the level of detail requested. The number of Medical Retirement certificates issued for reasons of mental disorder in each year since Defra was created in 2001 was between zero and five (the actual numbers cannot be provided due to reasons of confidentiality).

English Nature

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many judicial reviews brought against English Nature between 1997 and 2003 in the House of Lords were (a) unsuccessful and (b) resulted in an order for costs being made against the applicant; and what the costs awarded were in each case. [181515]

Mr. Bradshaw: A judicial review commences in the High Court, with any appeal against that decision having to be made to Court of Appeal. Any appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision would then be made to the House of Lords.

English Nature has not been a party to any House of Lords hearing between 1997 and 2003.

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for judicial review against English Nature were granted permission to proceed in the (a) High Court, (b) Court of Appeal and (c) House of Lords in each year between 1997 and 2003 by (i) individuals, (ii) non-governmental organisations and (ii) corporate entities. [181520]

Mr. Bradshaw: Application for judicial review can be made only to the High Court. Appeals arising from the
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 631W
 
High Court case can be made to the Court of Appeal and then on to the House of Lords. Details for the years requested are as follows:

	Individuals	Non-governmental organisations	Corporate entities
High Court
1997–2000	0	0	0
2001	1	0	1
2002	0	0	0
2003	0	0	1(12)
Court of Appeal
1997–2002	0	0	0
2003	1	0	0
House of Lords
1997–2003	0	0	0

⁽¹²⁾ The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in 2004, with the hearing commencing in 2004.

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many judicial reviews brought against English Nature between 1997 and 2003 in the (a) High Court, (b) Court of Appeal and (c) House of Lords (i) were successful and (ii) resulted in an order for costs being made against English Nature; and what costs were awarded in each case. [181521]

Mr. Bradshaw: English Nature has been successful in all proceedings brought between 1997 and 2003.

European Union Landscape Convention

Diana Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to sign the European Union Landscape Convention. [181306]

Alun Michael: I am actively considering whether or not the United Kingdom should sign and ratify the Council of Europe's European Landscape Convention. On 7 June I wrote to ministerial colleagues in those departments which have an interest in the Convention, setting out my proposals. Following consideration of the responses, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will seek the agreement of Government colleagues to the appropriate course of action.

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost per farm is of the introduction of integrated pollution prevention and control requirements. [180373]

Mr. Morley: The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (the PPC Regulations), which implement the 1996 EC Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), apply to large intensive livestock installations with more than 40,000 places for poultry, 2000 places for production pigs, or 750 places for sows. IPPC will ensure that the environmental impacts of these farms are assessed and minimised. New farms must apply for a PPC permit before they can carry out their operations and existing farms must apply for a permit by 31 January 2007.
 
6 Jul 2004 : Column 632W
 

Regulators are required by statute to recover their costs from the operators they regulate. In England and Wales, the Environment Agency has made a particular effort to lower the cost of regulation through the development of an 'off the shelf' permit for farmers, provided that they can comply with "Standard Farming Installation Rules". In the period 2004–05, the standard fee for a PPC permit application is 3,024. Once a permit is issued, the Environment Agency will charge an annual subsistence fee to cover the costs incurred in assessing compliance and maintaining the permit. These fees are 2,095 for a standard permit holder or 2,626 for the largest farms (more than 400,000 poultry, 20,000 production pigs, or 7,500 sows). For the purposes of the permit application, some farmers may decide to employ consultants to help them to complete the necessary records, audits and plans. The Standard Farming Rules, which were developed in consultation with industry, are based on "Best Available Techniques" (BAT) that aims to balance the cost to the operator against the benefits to the environment. Some of these techniques may be expensive, particularly for those older farms that have suffered from lack of capital investment in recent years. The changes will be sought through improvement conditions established on a farm-by-farm basis, at timescales agreed between the Environment Agency and the farmer.

---