---

 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1091W
 

Written Answers to Questions

Tuesday 26 October 2004

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Ecclesiastical Law

Miss McIntosh: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations he has received regarding updating ecclesiastical law, with particular reference to the employment of clergy. [193768]

Sir Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners have received no such representations. The Archbishops' Council is, with representatives of other Christian bodies and faith communities, actively engaged in discussions with the DTI on this issue. The Church of England's review group, under the chairmanship of Professor David McClean, will bring its second report to the Archbishops' Council later this year and to the General Synod in February 2005. If Synod approves the group's proposals, the Church will begin to prepare the legislation necessary to implement them.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

REACH Proposal

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answers to questions 189034 and 189035, what proportion of the total direct costs across the EU for implementing the REACH proposal will fall on (a) industry and (b) the public purse. [190689]

Alun Michael: The Government have worked with industry and others to ensure that the benefits of the REACH proposals to human health and the environment are well focussed on achieving maximum practical benefit with a minimum of direct impact on industrial competitiveness. In particular our own proposals for "one substance, one registration" are intended to lower costs to industry as well as creating a level playing field across Europe and keeping animal testing to a minimum. We have presented proposals jointly with the Hungarian Government and received positive responses from other Governments to our proposals which will now be considered and discussed further within the EU. Estimates have to be based on proposals as they stand at any given stage and our suggestions are not yet part of the official proposals. Based on the Commission's proposals, the results from the UK partial Regulatory Impact Assessment referred to in the answers to questions 189034 and 189035 (i.e. an estimated direct cost of £515 million over the 11 year phase in period which is equivalent to total direct costs across the EU of approximately £2.4 billion) are estimates of the costs to be incurred by industry. This is in line with European Commission estimates published in October 2003 of a maximum overall cost of the
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1092W
 
revised proposal to be €7.5 billion. We are currently carrying out further impact assessment work to assess the indirect costs passed down the supply chain.

The European Commission estimates published in October 2003 indicate that, in addition to testing and registration costs, the chemicals industry is estimated to pay some €0.3 billion in fees to the new European chemicals agency. The costs of establishing and running the European chemicals agency under the REACH system were estimated at some €0.4 billion as a one-off cost over 11 years. This cost will be met from the fees paid by industry (€0.3 billion) and the remainder from the Community budget.

In the UK, the appointment of a Competent Authority or Authorities is a practical issue relating to the introduction of REACH and will be subject to a consultation exercise in the future.

Conservation

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on nature conservation in urban areas. [192332]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 18 October 2004]: Working with the grain of nature—a biodiversity strategy for England (Defra 2002) sets out the Government's vision for biodiversity in urban areas. The strategy recognises that a flourishing biodiversity makes a real contribution to the quality of life of urban residents and visitors alike. It aims to ensure that biodiversity conservation is integral to sustainable urban communities by enhancing biodiversity in green spaces and among developments in urban areas so that they are used by wildlife and valued by people. It aims to ensure that construction, planning, development and regeneration have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it where possible. A workstream group has been established to develop and take forward a work programme to implement the goals.

The Department has been working closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the preparation of a draft planning policy statement which was published for consultation last month. The draft PPS9 sets out the Government's policy objectives on biodiversity and geological conservation in England. These policies are firmly rooted in working with the grain of nature, including the objectives for urban areas.

Dairy Cows

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what central records are kept on the incidence of mastitis in cattle; and if she will make a statement; [192732]

(2) what her Department's policy is on (a) monitoring and (b) addressing lameness in dairy cows; and if she will make a statement; [192733]

(3) how many dairy cows were culled due to lameness in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [192734]

 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1093W
 

Mr. Bradshaw: There are no central records of the incidence of mastitis or lameness in dairy cattle. However, I am well aware of the seriousness of these welfare problems and their impact on the dairy industry.

That is why we continue to fund research in these areas. We are currently funding two research projects into the causes and control of cattle lameness at a cost of more than £800,000. Defra also has a contract with the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to run an advisory programme for farmers to encourage good welfare. A significant part of the contract is used for providing free advice to individual farmers, which often includes giving advice on ways they could help to alleviate mastitis and lameness levels in their herds. The most substantial part of the contract is used to fund awareness campaigns on topics of welfare concern. The campaigns aim to promote good practice, highlight the latest research and to discuss practical experiences. This year (and not for the first time) we are funding a series of meetings for farmers advising them on how to reduce the incidence of mastitis and promoting Defra's Mastitis Management Action Plan, which was developed in 1999. Lameness in dairy cattle has also been a major topic over the last few years. Last year, for example, we held a series of meetings on reducing injuries to dairy cows and produced an interactive CD-ROM aimed at helping farmers identify potential causes of injury to dairy cattle and provide guidance on minimising such risks.

The Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Cattle (which was revised last year) and its associated publications also provide advice on how to treat and prevent mastitis and lameness in dairy cows.

RAF Pershore

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on (a) the management of her Department's burial site at RAF Pershore and (b) its plans for the future use of the site and the land adjacent to it owned by her Department. [193094]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Department continues to take a sensitive and constructive approach at Pershore. The landscape on the leased area has been improved and plantings are maturing. The addition of a water course has benefited drainage. The site and its impact on the environment is subject to close professional supervision and scrutiny by the Environment Agency, the local authority and Defra. Both ground water and surface water quality are closely monitored and remain normal. In addition, surface water drains into a reed bed designed to purify the water before it discharges to the brook on the south side of the site. Close monitoring of the whole site will continue.

The two freehold cottages are currently on the open market for sale. The Department has not yet settled on its strategy for the disposal of the remaining freehold land, but has appointed professional consultants to give advice.

Rural Transport Partnerships

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1094W
 
she has for the future of rural transport partnerships after funding support transfers from the Countryside Agency to regional development agencies; [191098]

(2) what plans she has to allow rural transport partnerships to bid for community enterprise funds once funding from the Countryside Agency ceases; [191099]

(3) if she will make a statement on what funding sources she expects will be made available to help deliver the Countryside Agency's rural transport partnerships projects; [191100]

(4) how much money which was allocated in outline to rural transport plans by the Countryside Agency, but which was subsequently not spent, has been re-assimilated into her Department's budget; [191101]

(5) when her Department will be producing an evaluation of the effectiveness of rural transport partnerships; [191102]

(6) if she will make a statement on the withdrawal of the communities services grant from the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme; and what alternative sources of funding are available. [192683]

Alun Michael: The Countryside Agency funds Rural Transport Partnerships through their Vital Villages programme. The Agency will continue to fund existing projects and commitments until the Vital Villages programme closes on 31 March 2006. From 1 April 2005 Defra will devolve decision making on the delivery of economic and social regeneration policies to the regional development agencies. The regional development agencies are charged with contributing to the delivery of DEFRA's Public Service Agreement target to improve the accessibility of services for people in rural England. In recognition of their larger role in the delivery of DEFRA's policies, we have given the regional development agencies an additional £21.3 million per annum for the years 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08.

These new arrangements will mean considerable changes for how DEFRA achieves its rural objectives. regional development agencies, working with their partners, will be responsible for deciding how to spend their resources and grants may not be available for the types of projects that have been supported through the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme hitherto. But I am confident that by devolving these responsibilities to the regional development agencies and increasing their resources, rural delivery will become more responsive to local priorities and better focused on areas and people that need it most.

From now until the closure of the Vital Villages programme the Countryside Agency is working to mainstream the work of the Rural Transport Partnerships and share good practice.

£14 million has been invested in the Vital Villages programme this year. Although separate figures for rural transport plans are not available, the larger Vital Villages programme underspent by £80,000 in 2003–04. This underspend was not reallocated to DEFRA expenditure. In June the Agency published a "Guide to Finding Funding for Rural Transport Partnership Projects" (available in hard copy from the Agency and on their website, www.countryside.gov.uk) and some
 
26 Oct 2004 : Column 1095W
 
funding for small scale community transport schemes, such as mini-bus links, is available through DEFRA's Rural Enterprise Scheme.

The Agency published an evaluation of the Rural Transport Partnerships in June 2004 (also available in hard copy from the Agency and on their website) and is holding a national conference on 27 October to publicise the Partnerships' work and achievements.

---