---

12 Jul 2005 : Column 953W—continued

Cattle Ear Tags

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the reasons are for designating cattle ear tags as either primary or secondary. [10703]

Mr. Bradshaw: EC Regulation 1760/2000 requires cattle to be identified with an ear tag in each ear. Commission Regulation (EC) NO 911/2004 specifies that at least one of these ear tags must be made of plastic and be a minimum size to allow it to be read from a distance. This tag is known as the primary ear tag. The second ear tag can be made from other materials, such as metal, and does not have to meet the minimum size requirements of the primary ear tag.

Farm Plastics

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the waste disposal of farm plastics; what support the Government give for the (a) recycling and (b) re-use of such plastics; and what recent discussions she has had with the Local Government Association concerning schemes to advance such recycling and re-use. [11214]

Mr. Bradshaw: The Government issued a consultation paper on the Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 on 9 December 2004. Chapter 8 of this paper considered whether there should be a voluntary or statutory producer responsibility scheme for the collection and recovery of waste non-packaging farm plastics. Packaging plastics are already covered by the packaging regulations, but it is envisaged that any scheme would collect both packaging and non-packaging plastic waste. The consultation closed on 18 March 2005 and we are currently considering the responses to decide upon the best way forward.

In order to help prepare for a producer responsibility scheme, I have allocated £1 million of Business Resource Energy and Waste (BREW) funds and my officials are currently discussing with the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders Forum (AWSF) how this money should best be used.

The Local Government Association sit on the AWSF, and have also met with officials on the subject of farm plastics.

Fishing Licences

Mr. Michael Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the value of fines awarded by the courts for the offence of fishing without a licence in each region in England and Wales has been in each year since 2000. [8978]

Mr. Bradshaw: Data provided by the Environment Agency are set out as follows.
 
12 Jul 2005 : Column 954W
 

The data recorded are for fines and costs awarded by the court (not necessarily paid by the defendant).

The data provided have been collated using the agency's dedicated database—Fisheries Offence Processing System (FOPS) which has been in use since the year 2000. The data for years prior to 2000 were provided by the various regional legal departments.

	Concluded	Successful	Fine (£)	Costs (£)
North West
1996–97	940	695	27,172	29,564
1997–98	603	576	21,800	32,187
1998–99	492	461	19,373	17,415
1999–2000	375	354	16,612	15,645
2000–01	447	434	23,159	21,332
2001–02	393	388	20,653	20,025
2002–03	191	186	20,025	10,250
2003–04	224	218	15,437	15,125
2004–05	606	587	37,375	37,276
Southern
1996–97	—	340	13,596	13,870
1997–98	272	268	12,600	5,620
1998–99	386	342	17,754	15,295
1999–2000	521	461	20,580	19,594
2000–01	403	362	20,318	20,570
2001–02	500	468	27,236	28,855
2002–03	404	391	21,209	21,835
2003–04	452	440	28,591	26,040
2004–05	504	482	37,627	32,245
North East
1996–97	—	469	16,705	22,795
1997–98	525	492	19,880	23,282
1998–99	529	512	21,494	19,758
1999–2000	504	531	18,388	19,724
2000–01	272	219	13,770	16,805
2001–02	433	421	15,005	19,410
2002–03	296	286	12,822	14,645
2003–04	507	506	22,311	25,760
2004–05	514	505	23,588	26,815
South West
1996–97	—	284	15,207	14,757
1997–98	242	200	8,000	14,835
1998–99	203	203	11,789	11,225
1999–2000	201	200	10,604	9,678
2000–01	175	172	9,208	7,765
2001–02	196	180	10,585	8,155
2002–03	136	129	7,371	6,800
2003–04	227	219	13,216	12,254
2004–05	201	197	12,603	11,605
Anglian
1996–97	777	589	23,328	20,276
1997–98	603	508	21,755	18,706
1998–99	519	452	20,477	15,300
1999–2000	575	513	29,480	23,930
2000–01	386	357	16,415	11,393
2001–02	482	447	20,384	18,473
2002–03	477	458	28,537	23,081
2003–04	552	545	33,675	30,020
2004–05	569	557	38,697	33,250
Midlands
1996–97	—	1,024	40,842	38,249
1997–98	1,400	1,350	43,000	16,508
1998–99	473	437	25,069	13,272
1999–2000	368	372	15,161	15,785
2000–01	707	706	31,071	32,531
2001–02	1,175	1,166	44,081	46,875
2002–03	712	684	35,000	38,448
2003–04	606	594	35,009	37,847
2004–05	523	522	28,471	31,940
Thames
1996–97	—	1,127	40,330	52,129
1997–98	944	722	30,200	34,888
1998–99	881	830	37,936	42,993
1999–2000	884	883	42,517	41,978
2000–01	761	757	51,042	44,405
2001–02	953	908	48,267	46,318
2002–03	700	656	35,903	31,197
2003–04	747	724	44,288	41,504
2004–05	838	811	51,640	47,891
Wales
1996–97	—	140	10,745	12,559
1997–98	178	159	8,520	12,970
1998–99	232	211	19,317	11,765
1999–2000	183	164	12,313	14,554
2000–01	358	336	26,067	17,561
2001–02	216	205	12,614	11,275
2002–03	115	114	8,880	5,640
2003–04	246	243	20,106	15,180
2004–05	344	344	20,987	20,490
National
1996–97	—	4,668	187,925	204,199
1997–98	4,767	4,275	165,755	158,996
1998–99	3,715	3,448	173,209	147,023
1999–2000	3,611	3,478	165,655	160,888
2000–01	3,509	3,343	191,050	172,362
2001–02	4,348	4,183	198,825	199,384
2002–03	3,031	2,904	162,205	151,896
2003–04	3,561	3,489	212,633	203,730
2004–05	4,099	4,005	250,988	241,512

 
12 Jul 2005 : Column 955W
 

Foot and Mouth

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) farmers and (b) contractors have outstanding claims from the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak. [7658]

Mr. Bradshaw: Currently, there are 14 farmers and 15 contractors who claim moneys are outstanding from the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak.

Additionally, there are 10 personal injury claims relating to the outbreak, of which seven have been settled subject to agreement on costs. The Department is disputing valuation fees with 10 valuers engaged during the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak.

Nappies

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many disposable nappies she estimates were (a) used and (b) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration and (iii) other means in the last year for which figures are available. [4441]

Mr. Bradshaw: We do not collect information on the amount of disposable nappies used nor of the disposal route.

The strategy unit report 'Waste not Want not' estimated that in 2000–01 nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes. In 2003–04 72 per cent. of our household waste was sent to landfill and just under 9 per cent. went to incineration.

Neasden Goods Depot

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the level of pollution from Neasden Goods Depot; and if she will make a statement. [2500]

 
12 Jul 2005 : Column 956W
 

Mr. Bradshaw: Neasden Goods Depot falls within an Air Quality Management Area declared by the London borough of Brent. Defra has provided supplementary credit approval to the London borough of Brent to help fund a detailed assessment of air pollution in the vicinity of the depot. This assessment has identified elevated levels of particulate matter (PM _{1 0} ) in the vicinity of the goods depot. This appears to be caused mainly by waste management operations, regulated by the Environment Agency, located at the depot.

The Environment Agency has been taking action to improve the standard of operations at Neasden Goods Depot, more recently in conjunction with the London borough of Brent.

There are four sites at Neasden Goods Yard, three Waste Management Licences (WML) and one End of Life Vehicles (ELV) licence.

To date the Environment Agency has:

undertaken unannounced weekly inspections to all three sites holding a WML. During these, areas requiring attention to site infrastructure and operations are identified and improvements required;

issued warning letters when necessary;

served legal enforcement notices that have demanded specific actions be undertaken;

served legal enforcement notices that have suspended operations when appropriate; and

carried out comprehensive enforcement action against the site we believe to be the worst performing of the three that is contributing significantly to the pollution of the local environment.

The above actions have resulted in a number of improvements being made:

buildings are now constructed to contain the majority of waste handling operations at the three sites;

large areas of concrete hard standing has been laid (where previously, significant areas of the goods yard were mud and hardcore) at all four sites as well as the communal haul road;

improved drainage has been installed;

dust suppression systems have been installed, used and maintained; and,

daily road sweeping of service yard and section of public highway.

The Environment Agency has recently commissioned independent environmental consultants to undertake a dust-monitoring programme. The monitoring—planned from July to September 2005—will clarify the contribution that the licensed sites make to PM _{1 0} levels in the locality. This dust survey compliments that which the local authority has already put in place.

In addition the London borough of Brent has improved the pavement infrastructure on the highway near the goods depot and is regularly washing the road to reduce emissions of PM caused by road traffic.

The Environment Agency continues its dialogue with all four operators, landlord and London borough of Brent. The result is a series of improvements have been delivered and further works is planned to tackle dust emissions.
 
12 Jul 2005 : Column 957W
 

London borough of Brent is continuing to monitor air pollution levels in the vicinity of Neasden Goods Depot to assess the results of the emissions control measures. Monitoring data are published on the world wide web at www.londonair.org.uk.

---