| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 May 2006 : Column 1201W—continued
Flood Prevention
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been allocated to Wessex Flood Defence Committee in each of the last five years. [70165]
Ian Pearson: The Environment Agency is required to arrange for its flood defence functions, except for certain financial ones, to be carried out by Regional Flood Defence Committees.
I understand from the Environment Agency that the total of DEFRA grant and levies on local authorities for the area of the Wessex Regional Flood Defence Committee was £23.2 million in 2002-03, £27.2 million in 2003-04, and £39.1 million in 2004-05. Other funding for specific projects is obtained from, for example, direct beneficiaries and developers.
Gamebirds
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the percentage of gamebirds shot on commercial shooting estates for human consumption in 2005-06. [70779]
Barry Gardiner: No such estimate has been made.
There are no compulsory government schemes collecting national statistics on the number of gamebirds shot for human consumption.
Hunting Act
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the HuntingAct 2004 in preventing wild animals being (a) hunted and (b) killed by dogs. [70738]
Barry Gardiner: The Government are satisfied with the operation of the Hunting Act 2004, which, except where carried out in accordance with the tightly-drawn exemptions set out in the Act, bans all hunting of wild mammals with dogs. DEFRA has not instituted specific arrangements to monitor the activities of individual hunts, but they are subject to the law and liable to prosecution if they breach the provisions of the Act.
Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the socio-economic implications of the decision to reduce financial support for the Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research. [68245]
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 8 May 2006]: Financial support is given to the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER) by its parent Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), through an annual core strategic grant. IGER may also secure BBSRC funding via other funding routes. Defra invests at IGER through a range of research contracts to meet specific research requirements. Some are placed with IGER as preferred supplier while others are won by IGER through open competition. In addition, IGER also undertakes research for consortia of which Defra is one of a number of sponsors, for example through LINK programmes.
Defra has made no direct assessment of the socio-economic implications of its decision to refocus research priorities into new areas and the effect this will have on the value of new contracts to the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER).
IGER remains a very important research partner for Defra in the development and delivery of our policy objectives. This is reflected in the department's continuing significant investment at IGER, where we are already committed to investing around £5 million in research programmes in 2006-07. Further project proposals are under negotiation and we anticipate the Department's final commitment will be nearer £5.5 million, excluding our contributions to relevant LINK project consortia. By comparison, Defra's research investment at IGER in 2005-06 was approximately £5.8 million, excluding LINK projects.
Mark Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions (a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues have had with (i) the Welsh Assembly Government and (ii) the Secretary of State for Wales on the socio-economic impact of the decision to reduce financial support for the Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research. [68249]
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 8 May 2006]: The Noble Lord Bach, had been in contact with the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Environment Planning and Countryside about the department's decision to refocus research priorities into new areas and the effect this will have on the value of new contracts to the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER).
Defra officials will continue to involve Welsh Assembly Government officials in discussions and decisions across the whole of Defra's research portfolio, not just those affecting IGER. Defra officials have also been in contact with the Wales Office regarding IGER.
Market Towns
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the market towns initiative. [71676]
Barry Gardiner: A significant amount of funding was delivered through the Market Towns Initiative. The Countryside Agency carried out a full assessment and concluded that it delivered a wide range of benefits for market towns and their hinterlands.
Responsibility for rural regeneration in market towns is now devolved to Regional Development Agencies, to whom Defra contributes £73 million a year.
Nitrates Directive
Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions he has had on the implementation of the nitrates directive in the UK; [68211]
(2) what discussions he has had on the effect of the implementation of the nitrates directive on the farming industry (a) in East Anglia and (b) elsewhere in the UK. [68215]
Ian Pearson: The Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) action programme of measures for England is now under the four yearly review required by the directive and a public consultation will be issued shortly.
As part of the review, Defra has held a series of regional farmers’ workshops (including in East Anglia) to discuss and develop proposals for the revised measures and to seek their views on potential impacts.
In addition, there has been ongoing dialogue with farming industry representatives, including the national farmers union, country land and business association and the tenant farmers association. That dialogue is continuing, as well as a dialogue with a wider stakeholder audience.
Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what alternatives to the use of damaging fertilizers and pesticides have been considered in order to comply with the nitrates directive. [68214]
Ian Pearson: The main thrust of the directive is to control the application of nitrogen-containing material to land. Compliance is achieved through requiring farmers to apply good practice measures and nutrient management techniques and setting limits on the amount and times when fertilisers may be spread on the land. Fertilisers only cause damage to land when they are applied in excess.
Compliance with the directive encourages the use of organic fertiliser (i.e. manure) as opposed to chemical fertilisers and pesticides.
Reducing Obesity
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for (a) Health and (b) Education and Skills about reducing obesity in (i) schools and (ii) young people; and if he will make a statement. [68845]
Barry Gardiner: I have regular contact with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Skills on a range of issues including obesity.
In addition, my officials have discussed healthy eating, including obesity, with colleagues in the Department For Education and Skills and the Department of Health in the context of the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (PSFPI). One of the objectives for this Initiative is to increase the consumption of healthy and nutritious food.
Officials from both Departments are represented on the Food Procurement Implementation Group established by Defra to oversee the delivery of the PSFPI. They have also provided advice for the publication "Sausage and Mash and Sustainability", which is designed to raise awareness on obesity and other issues.
Further information, including this publication, is available on the Defra website at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustain/procurement/awareness.htm
Regional Development Agencies
Mr. Liddell-Grainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding the Department allocated to regional development agencies in each year since 2000-01. [70253]
Barry Gardiner: Since April 2002, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been financed through a Single Programme budget (the “Single Pot”). This consists of money from various Departments (DTI, DCLG, DfES, Defra, DCMS and UKTI).
The Defra contributions to the Regional Development Agencies Single Pot are as follows:
| Financial Year | Defra contribution to RDA Single Pot (£ million) |
As Defra was created in June 2001, inheriting separate programme budgets and commitments from the former DETR and MAFF, figures for 2000-01 and 2001-02 are not included in the table.
The significant increase in Defra funding to RDAs from 2005 is the result primarily of the transfer of additional funding from the Countryside Agency (£21 million per annum between 2005-06 and 2007-08); and funding for RDA regional co-ordination of the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Programme (£5 million in 2005-06 and £12 million in 2006-07).
Supermarkets
Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the environmental impact of supermarkets and the food industry; and if he will make a statement. [71664]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Food Industry Sustainability Strategy published last month assesses the environmental impacts of the food industry, including the supermarkets, and sets out a series of targets to reduce them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today invited supermarket representatives to talks on this and other related issues.
Tallow
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the tallow ban was reversed; when the EU study which may redefine tallow as a fuel is expected to report; and what dispensation has been sought from the EU in the meantime. [68651]
Ian Pearson: There has been no tallow ban. Installations may burn tallow provided they comply with regulatory requirements. If, as is usually the case, the tallow is waste within the definition given in the EU Waste Framework Directive, the regulatory requirements include one for a permit issued under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 incorporating the requirements of the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID).
In response to representations by HM Government, the European Commission has set up a study to help establish whether the WID controls are proportionate and necessary to the protection of the environment. The study is expected to report by the autumn, and the Government are pressing the Commission for the study to be completed as soon as possible.
I have encouraged the industry, meanwhile, to enter into technical discussions with the environmental regulators (the Environment Agency or, for smaller plants, local authorities), to determine how individual plants might move over time to comply with the WID if the study were to conclude that the WID controls are appropriate.
The study is not about whether waste tallow is a fuel—it manifestly is a fuel. However, the proposed Directive on Waste currently under negotiation in the EU contains a provision under which a technical committee could determine the point at which specified waste materials cease to be waste. The European Commission has already identified waste tallow used as fuel as a candidate for this procedure if it is included in the finalised Directive.
Waste Treatment
Alistair Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations he has received from the Institute of Civil Engineers on the potential impact on climate change of improving the way in which waste is treated; and if he will make a statement. [70863]
Ian Pearson: The way in which waste is managed makes a significant contribution to UK emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly methane emissions released from landfill. Forms of waste management such as recycling or incineration with energy recovery can result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change.
In January 2006, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) published a report entitled “The Case for a Resource Management Strategy”. Defra's “Review of England's Waste Strategy-A Consultation Document” agrees that more emphasis needs to be put on using waste as a resource and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be a major driver behind the revised waste strategy.
Defra is currently collating responses received from the consultation, which closed on 9 May. Any representations made by ICE will be considered by the Department.
Defra officials recently met with ICE and the Institute of Mechanical Engineers to discuss ways in which they could contribute towards Defra’s development of waste policy. These discussions are ongoing.
Home Department
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which UK companies undertake animal testing. [71680]
Joan Ryan: I am unable to provide you with the information requested. The identities of organisations and individuals licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are not published in any form by the Home Office.
The activities of a small number of animal rights extremists make it necessary to protect establishments and individuals licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, their staff, and others associated with them, from potential harassment and harm. In addition, section 24 of the 1986 Act, which prohibits the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials of confidential information relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures other than in the discharge of their functions under the 1986 Act, prevents the disclosure of information about individual establishments licensed under the Act that has been provided in confidence.
Although there is a need to inform the public debate about the use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes, I do not believe it would be in the public interest to disclose information that might increase the risk of individuals, establishments or their suppliers being subjected to violence and intimidation.
John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of the project licences granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that were in force in Scotland at the end of 2004 were in (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified severity bandings; [71360]
(2) what proportion of regulated procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 carried out in Scotland in 2004 were conducted without any form of anaesthesia; [71361]
(3) how many infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were recorded in Scotland at the end of 2004; and how many prosecutions resulted; [71362]
(4) how many (a) genetically modified animals and (b) animals with a harmful genetic defect were used in regulated procedures conducted in Scotland under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2004; [71363]
(5) what proportion of the regulated procedures conducted in Scotland under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2004 were carried out for (a) fundamental and applied studies other than toxicology and (b) toxicity tests or other safety and efficacy evaluation; [71364]
(6) how many project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 2004, in respect of work to be carried out in Scotland; and how many such project licences were in force at the end of 2004; [70959]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |