|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
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. 
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.
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. 
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.
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. 
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 databaseFisheries 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 (£)|
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. 
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.
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. 
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 200001 nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes. In 200304 72 per cent. of our household waste was sent to landfill and just under 9 per cent. went to incineration.
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. 
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;
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;
The Environment Agency has recently commissioned independent environmental consultants to undertake a dust-monitoring programme. The monitoringplanned from July to September 2005will 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.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|