|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The annual Food Standards Agency's consumer attitudes survey is used to track 5 A DAY awareness and consumption. The survey shows knowledge of the 5 A DAY message has increased from 43 per cent. in 2000 to 67 per cent. in 2005, while those claiming to have eaten at least five portions of fruit and vegetables the previous day has risen from 26 per cent. in 2000 to 30 per cent. in 2005.
The national foundation for educational research (NFER), in partnership with Leeds University, was commissioned by the Big Lottery Fund to carry out an evaluation of the school fruit and vegetable scheme. Results published in September 2005 demonstrated that children ate significantly more fruit while participating in the scheme. The results showed that increased consumption of fruit was not sustained when children's participation in the scheme came to an end. However, there was some evidence of increased knowledge of healthy eating, particularly in children from deprived areas.
We will be working to integrate the scheme more closely with other healthy eating initiatives in schools, to provide opportunities to maintain the behaviour change achieved by participation in the scheme.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when a replacement for Fungaflor will be licensed for use in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. 
Andrew Stunell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to review the guidelines to energy conservation authorities on complying with the requirements of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, as set out in paragraph 9.24 of the 2003 Energy White Paper; and if he will make a statement. 
We welcome the progress that local authorities have made in delivering their Home Energy Conservation Act reports to date. However, we
recognise that more needs to be done in order to make further progress and have committed to reviewing the existing guidance and identifying how improvements can be made. The review will be launched this summer and will be concluded by the end of this year.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what criteria the Environment Agency uses to assess the environmental consequences of hydroschemes; what conclusion it came to on the Littlecombe site, Dursley; and on what basis. 
Ian Pearson: The Environment Agency assesses each scheme on its own merits and has produced a guidance document entitled HydropowerA Handbook for Agency Staff, which is available to the public on request. It contains guidance for developers on the type of information they should consider as part of their responsibility to take account of the potential environmental impacts of hydroschemes.
The Environment Agency has not reached a conclusion about hydropower at the Littlecombe site, Dursley. Although it has discussed hydropower and what the developers would need to consider, the Agency has not yet received specific details or a consultation.
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made by the Environment Agency in establishing river basin district liaison panels; and who are expected to be appointed as panel members. 
Ian Pearson: The Environment Agency is in the process of establishing River Basin District Liaison Panels as part of stakeholder engagement and partnership working under the Water Framework Directive. The agency is putting in place one Liaison Panel for each River Basin District in England. Each panel will comprise the key organisations who are responsible for implementation, and others who can represent the public interest and help in driving behavioural change.
The Water Act 2003 introduced competition in water supply for large users. Licensed water suppliers are now able to compete with statutory water companies to supply customers with a consumption of at least 50 million litres per year. The Act provides a mechanism to alter the customer consumption threshold. A review of the threshold will take place in 2008 to consider the impact of the regime
on drinking water quality, environmental protection, customer service and prices for eligible and other customers.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is responsible for (a) setting leak reduction targets and (b) monitoring performance against those targets in the south east; and what assessment his Department has undertaken of the financial and technical tests used to monitor the performance of water companies. 
Ian Pearson: Leakage targets are set and monitored by the Economic Regulator, Ofwat. They require water companies to compare the cost of reducing leakage and the value of the water saved, including any associated environmental and social costs and benefits.
In March 2003, the tripartite group of Defra, the Environment Agency and Ofwat published the report, Future approaches to leakage target setting for water companies in England and Wales. This sets out the best practice principles in the economic level of leakage calculation. Ofwat assesses the water companies economic levels of leakage analyses against these principles.
As well as analysing the companies economic assessments, Ofwat also monitors their annual performance in managing leakage. This is done through an annual submission to Ofwat known as the June Return. Through this return the companies provide a full reconciliation of how all treated water put into supply is used, including the volume lost to leakage.
Dr. Tony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers water companies have to take action against those people who are observed to be wasting water; and whether there are proposals for further such powers. 
Ian Pearson: Water companies have powers under section 75 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and within the Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 to take action if they consider water supplied by the company is being wasted or is likely to be wasted. There are no current proposals for further such powers.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what research his Department has undertaken into the costs
of (a) a national grid for water and (b) moving water through river systems; 
Ian Pearson: The concept of a national water grid has been raised many times in the last 30 years and was has never been considered remotely viable. It was most recently discussed at the Secretary of State's meeting on 1 June with representatives of water companies and the water industry regulators. It was rejected by all those present on the grounds of its disproportionate and unjustifiable cost, both for the environment and for water bills, compared with the benefits such a grid could deliver. This stance was informed by a recent desk study undertaken by the Environment Agency, which will be published later this summer.
A good deal of water is already transferred within water companies areas of operation to give individual companies greater flexibility to meet local shortages. Longer distance links have long been established between, for example, Wales and the West Midlands and South East Lancashire, the Lake District and Lancashire, and from the Fenland watercourses to Essex.
The Environment Agency, in consultation with Ofwat, is able to propose to a water company that it enters into a bulk supply agreement with another water company, where it is necessary to secure the proper use of water resources.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the (a) maximum usable water volume and (b) actual usable volume for water in each water supply company region was in each financial year since 1997. 
Maximum usable water volumes are best indicated by the distribution input (total volume of drinking water put into the supply system per day). Actual usable water volumes are best indicated by the water delivered (total volume of drinking water delivered per day). Figures for each water supply company region in each financial year since 1997-98, in megalitres per day, were reported as follows:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|