|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 23 May 2006]: The partial regulatory impact assessment and cost benefit analysis published with our Consultation on controlling the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle in high incidence areas in England made clear that the potential cost of any perturbation effect was not included as data were not available at the time.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways he takes into account public opinion in determining the Governments policies on bovine tuberculosis control. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 25 May 2006]: The Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain, published in March 2005, sets out our commitment to work in partnership with our stakeholders, including farmers, consumers, vets, wildlife groups and conservation groups, in developing policies on bovine tuberculosis (bTB).
We worked closely with stakeholder groups in developing the Strategic Framework itself, and in developing our policy for pre-movement testing in England. Between December 2005 and March 2006 we consulted on the principle and method of badger culling in high incidence areas of England, and held a number of citizens panels to provide further information to feed into the consultation process.
On 6 March we held our first annual bTB meeting for Great Britain, which allowed a two-way exchange of information between the Government and our stakeholders on the latest bTB developments and provided opportunities for constructive discussion. In addition, we are in the process of setting up a new national bTB stakeholder body to advise on the development and delivery of new bTB policies.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how his Department plans to weight responses to the consultation document Controlling the Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling; 
(2) how many responses were received to the consultation document Controlling the Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling by (a) post, (b) email, (c) telephone, (d) e-petition and (e) other methods. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 25 May 2006]: 47,474 consultation responses were received by post and email; further responses were received in the form of petitions. The specific method was not recorded for each response as it is not relevant to the analytical process.
Responses are not being weighted. They are classified and analysed by the type of respondent (e.g. stakeholder or public) and the content of the response (e.g. standard campaign letter, brief yes or no statement or detailed response).
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions his Department has had with Prionics AG since its acquisition of the Bovigam gamma interferon bovine tuberculosis test; and what alternatives to this test are available to the Department. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Veterinary Laboratories Agency is working closely with Prionics to refine the Bovigam test and further evaluate its performance. There are currently no equally sensitive alternative blood-based tests.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the terms of reference are for the current trials using snares for catching badgers; where the trials are being conducted; and when (a) the trials will end and (b) the results will be published. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 25 May 2006]: The objective of the current trial is to assess whether a specially designed body snare for badgers is an effective and humane method of restraint. The body snare is intended to be non-lethal and the purpose of the proposed trials is to assess the snare. The study will follow the principles laid down in the draft EU Directive on Humane Trapping Standards whereby the humaneness of a trapping device is first assessed under controlled conditions in pen trials before, if its humaneness is deemed to be acceptable, field trials of the device are conducted to confirm its humaneness and to assess its efficacy and non-target risks. The aim is to release all captured badgers taken during the trial back into the wild unharmed.
Research in relation to wildlife can be sensitive and controversial. There are real concerns over the security of the sites and the personal safety of the staff involved in this particular work and therefore I regret that I cannot supply this information.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the most recent statistics are for the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle; what assessment he has made of the impact on the results of the use of new tuberculin in tests; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 25 May 2006]: Latest provisional statistics show that the estimated incidence of bovine TB in Great Britain was 2.9 per cent. in the first quarter of 2006, compared to 4.8 per cent. in the same period of 2005 and 3.4 per cent. in 2004(1).
It is too early at present to draw any conclusions about the reduction in incidence from 2005 to 2006, as this may be due to one of a range of reasons or a combination of factors. The possible causes are currently under investigation.
(1) Confirmed new herd incidents as a percentage of tests on unrestricted herds. Provisional data downloaded from DEFRAs animal health database (Vetnet) on 24 May 2006. Subject to change as more data become available.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the total eradication of bovine tuberculosis is achievable. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 24 May 2006]: The Government Strategic Framework for the sustainable control of bovine TB in Great Britain, published in early 2005, focuses on our assessment of what is achievable within a 10-year timeframe. The vision set out in the Strategic Framework is to slow down and prevent the geographic spread of bovine TB to areas currently free of the disease, and achieve a sustained reduction in disease incidence in cattle in high incidence areas.
Rob Marris: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition his Department uses of (a) satisfactory, (b) control, (c) reduction, and (d) contain in its summary of the advice from veterinary surgeons in the report Controlling the Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling. 
Satisfactory: disease control and humaneness requirements are met by the policy.
Control: a halt in the increase in the incidence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in cattle.
Reduction: a decline in the number of outbreaks of bTB in cattle in high incidence areas.
Contain: prevention of the spread and establishment of bTB in cattle herds in areas clear or with a low incidence of TB in England.
Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the total coalesced land area involved would be if (a) badger culling boundaries were set at (i) one kilometre and (ii) 2.5 kilometres from the boundaries of all tuberculosis-infected farms in England and (b) if badger culling areas of 300 square kilometres were established around the boundaries of all such farms, using 2005 as the reference year; 
(2) what the total coalesced land area is in the example of coalescence over (a) one kilometre and (b) 2.5 kilometres from the boundaries of farms in high tuberculosis incidence areas in England, in Figure 3, page 37, of the consultation document, Controlling the Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 23 May 2006]: The area covered by a cull would be dependent on the culling policy. No decision has been taken on whether to introduce a culling policy nor the precise way this would be done.
The Government have made it clear that if a decision was to be taken to cull badgers to reduce the incidence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB), culling would be limited to land in high incidence areas in England, (i.e. with repeated herd breakdown) and not to any farm infected with bTB.
The maps of coalesced culling areas presented in the consultation document, Controlling the Spread of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle in High Incidence Areas in England: Badger Culling, are for illustrative purposes only. The coalesced area they illustrate is based on only one possible approach to culling and is estimated as a range of 19,650 km(2)-25,200 km(2).
John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when guidance was last issued to local authorities on the use of traffic regulation orders to counter unauthorised motorised vehicles on bridleways. 
Barry Gardiner: Guidance was last issued in December 2005. It is contained within Regulating the use of motor vehicles on public rights of way and off roadA guide for Local Authorities, Police and Community Safety Partnerships.
Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the effect on the local environment of perfluorooctane sulphonate use during the Buncefield Depot fire. 
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the effect on the local environment of the use of perfluorooctane sulphonate during the Buncefield Depot fire. 
Ian Pearson: The Environment Agency started to monitor for perfluorooctance sulfonate (PFOS) in the vicinity of the site following the fire in order to give a better understanding of the impact of the incident on the environment.
The agency has been closely monitoring the River Ver, and have detected low levels of PFOS in the river both during and after the Buncefield incident. No evidence to date has been observed of any impact on fish or other wildlife in the river as a result of this contaminant.
Water samples have been taken from the network of groundwater boreholes both on the Buncefield site and in the surrounding area. These samples have also shown evidence of the presence of PFOS mainly at low levels or below the limit of detection. Two samples however showed elevated levels of PFOS at 4.5 and 5.9 micrograms/litre. Repeat testing of the sample giving the higher result, showed a much lower level of 0.20 micrograms/litre.
The latest results of this groundwater monitoring were the subject of an Environment Agency press release on Friday 12 May. Details can be found on the agency website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/1387272.
The agency has instigated a significant programme of work to further monitor the presence and extent of PFOS in both surface and ground waters in the environment around Buncefield. This programme will also look at background levels of PFOS in the wider environment in England and Wales.
Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he will reply to the letters of 8 March and 18 April 2006 from the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire concerning a constituent Mr. John Wood of Winster, Derbyshire, and legislation in respect of the protection of bats. 
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications were made under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for new rights of access in each district of Gloucestershire in each year since the Act came into force; and how many were successful. 
Barry Gardiner [holding answer 25 May 2006]: I assume that the question seeks the number of appeals made either in relation to the mapping of land as open country and registered common land or decisions on restrictions and exclusions of the right of access under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Defra does not hold figures for either type of appeal broken down by local authority district, or by local authority area. This information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
Ian Pearson: The Government continues to support the Commission in its efforts to improve and strengthen the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in the longer term, including work to include aviation emissions in the scheme. The UK works closely with the Commission's Aviation Working Group, which is considering how best to include aviation in the scheme. We are continuing to press the Commission to present a legislative proposal by the end of 2006.
The UK welcomes the review of the scheme that the Commission is undertaking. This will be a key opportunity for the Commission to strengthen the scheme post-2012 by mapping out a long-term policy framework that will help create security and confidence for business and facilitate significant investment in cleaner technologies. The Government are already considering their priorities for the review and intend to work closely with the Commission and other member states throughout the process. We look forward to the Commission's report this summer outlining how the work will be taken forward.
Kitty Ussher: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the contribution that energy efficiency could make to meeting the Government's climate change targets. 
Ian Pearson: Energy efficiency is an integral part of our action to tackle climate change. We have a strong package of energy efficiency policies and measures, as most recently updated in the 2006 Climate Change Programme, which will deliver savings of 10.2 million tonnes of carbon per year across the economy by 2010. This will equate to between 36 and 43 per cent. of the overall carbon savings in the Climate Change Programme, depending on the level of savings delivered through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
Ian Pearson: The Energy Saving Trust's Energy Saving Recommended (ESR) scheme was extended to cover consumer electronic goods in January 2006 when integrated digital TVs were added. To date nine manufacturers have been successful in securing endorsement for 90 products.
The Energy Saving Trust hopes to be able to extend the range of consumer electronic products covered by ESR later this year. Priorities include integrated digital recording equipment and set top boxes.
Mr. Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the funding provided by English Nature for land managers in upland areas and commons was spent (a) on grants to farmers and (b) in administration expenses in each year since 2001. 
Barry Gardiner: English Nature does not separately record the administrative costs incurred in setting up agreements. However, the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme was specifically designed to reduce administrative costs by the use of standard agreements and standard payments. Prior to this, each agreement was individually negotiated and could take up to a year to complete.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|