|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
John Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether all integrated waste collection and street cleansing contracts let by waste authorities in London will be subject to the requirement to be in general conformity with the Mayors Municipal Waste Management Strategy under his proposals set out in The Greater London Authority: The Governments Final Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 22 November 2006]: When entering into integrated waste collection and street cleansing contracts, waste authorities should be aware that those aspects of the contract which fall under Part II (for example, section 45 on the collection, disposal or treatment of controlled waste) will be subject to the requirement for waste authorities to be in general conformity with the Mayors Municipal Waste Management Strategy. Those aspects of the contract that fall under Part IV of the Act (for example section 89 on street cleansing) will not be subject to this requirement.
John Austin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory powers the Mayor of London will have under the proposals set out in The Greater London Authority: The Governments Final Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly to ensure the objectives of the London Waste Infrastructure Development Programme are achieved. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 22 November 2006]: The package of measures announced in The Governments Final Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly proposes that the Mayor should have discretion to decide those planning applications for waste facilities which are strategically important and critical to implementing his waste strategy. The Government also proposes that waste authorities will be required to deliver functions under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) in general conformity with Mayors Municipal Waste Management Strategy.
The Government also proposes to establish a dedicated London Waste Infrastructure Development Programme to get new waste facilities on the ground. This will be led by DEFRA with strong Greater London Authority involvement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions between his waste strategy team officials and his (a)
climate change team, (b) transport team, (c) energy team and (d) procurement team took place prior to the announcement in July on the Greater London Authority: The Government's Final Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor and Assembly. 
Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 21 November 2006]: A number of discussions took place between relevant officials in this Department, and with those from the Government Office for London and Department for Communities and Local Government, prior to the announcement in July on The Greater London Authority: The Government's Final Proposals for Additional Powers and Responsibilities for the Mayor
A service level agreement covers work carried out by the MHS on behalf of DEFRA. This includes animal identification, disease surveillance (including transmissible spongiform encephalopathy controls), animal welfare and sample taking.
Barry Gardiner: The Government would like to see the abolition of the milk quota system as soon as is practicable because it is bureaucratic, constrains production by efficient farmers and imposes additional costs on the United Kingdom dairy industry.
The current European Union (EU) regulations provide for milk quotas to continue until 2015. The EU Commission is due to carry out a health check on the common agricultural policy (CAP) by 2008 and the Agriculture Commissioner has indicated her willingness to consider phasing out milk quotas. We shall be negotiating for an end to milk quotas as part of a structured reform of the CAP.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what (a) contracts and (b) service level agreements with environmental organisations Natural England has inherited from English Nature; and what the (i) length and (ii) value is of each contract. 
Ian Pearson: In line with the Civil Service Commissioners' Code on senior recruitment, the post of Head of the Office of Climate Change was advertised widely through open and fair competition during the week beginning 12 November. The specification for the post was prepared in consultation with my Secretary of State as chair of the Office of Climate Change Ministerial Board, and with the senior officials from the Departments that make up the Officials Board. The Head of Office selection panel will be made up of Officials Board representatives and will be chaired by a civil service commissioner. Final interviews are due to take place in February.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what consideration has been given to waiving integrated pollution prevention and control charges for any period of time; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what conditions must be met before an integrated pollution prevention and control permit will be granted; what estimate his Department has made of the costs incurred by farmers to achieve the required standard; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) what the cost of (a) permits and (b) annual fees (i) will be to the integrated pollution prevention and control regime and (ii) was for the integrated pollution control regime under Part I of the 1990 Environment Protection Act; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The integrated pollution prevention control (IPPC) directive applies an integrated environmental approach to the regulation of industrial activities. This means that emissions to air, water (including discharges to sewer) and land, plus a range of other environmental effects, including noise and vibration, must be considered together before a permit is granted. IPPC aims to prevent emissions and waste production and where that is not practicable, reduce them to acceptable levels.
The regulator must set permit conditions so as to achieve a high level of protection for the environment and human health as a whole. These conditions are based on the use of the Best Available Techniques , which balances the costs to the operator against the benefits to the environment and human health.
Regulatory costs have to be met by those whose activities cause the need for them and so cannot be waived. Intensive livestock installations will be charged £3,331 for a permit application and then annual charges of £2,229 for a small installation and £2,794 for a large one. The IPPC directive applies only to poultry installations with places for more than 40,000 birds and to installations with places for more than 2,000 production pigs or 750 sows. Large units are those greater than 10 times the lower threshold, that is those greater than 400,000 birds, 20,000 production pigs or 7,500 sows.
On 19 May, the industry accepted an offer from the Environment Agency whereby, provided permit applications are received evenly through the 1 November 2006 to 31 January 2007 application period, a subsistence charge of £1,471 for an existing small installation and £1,844 for an existing large one will be charged to industry from August 2007 until March 2008. This represents a substantial saving to industry.
Intensive livestock installations are not, and have never been, subject to the integrated pollution control regime under Part I of the 1990 Environment Protection Act. The total capital costs of meeting, in England, the requirements of the IPPC directiveincluding permitting and improvements likely to be necessary over the next few yearswere estimated by the Rural Development Service in February 2006 to be £64.6 million with annual costs of £20.2 million, although there are significant uncertainties about these estimates.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the amount of the fee for an integrated pollution prevention and control permit application was determined by the Environment Agency; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Integrated pollution prevention and control permit application charges and annual fees are based on the Environment Agency's Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal scheme. This scheme has been designed to reflect the actual environmental risk posed by the nature, performance, location and management of each installation. In calculating the operator's charges, the scheme takes into account the installation's complexity, emissions performance, inherent potential to pollute, location, and the standards of management, control and compliance achieved by the operator.
Mr. Graham Stuart:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress he has made in his discussions with the National Farmers'
Union and the Environment Agency to limit the financial impacts on farmers of introducing integrated pollution prevention and control; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bradshaw: My noble Friend the Lord Rooker recently met both representatives of the industry and Peter Kendall from the National Farmers' Union to discuss this matter. We have assured them that we are reviewing what further might be able to be done to streamline and reduce the costs of these regulatory requirements.
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many enriched poultry cages have been introduced to replace battery cages in the poultry industry since 2001. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The information requested is not available. However, DEFRA estimates that 600,000 birds are now kept in enriched poultry cages. A further 250,000 birds are kept in conventional cages installed during 2001-02 which could be easily converted to enriched cages.
Mr. Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department is taking in conjunction with the poultry industry to ensure that the 2012 ban on battery cages is met. 
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 bans the conventional cage from 2012. Laying hens may only be kept in enriched cages or non-cage systems after this date. Any further changes to systems of production must be made at European Union level.
All poultry keepers must be acquainted with DEFRA's Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Laying Hens. The code makes it clear that, under regulation 10 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2000, hens may not be kept in conventional cages from 1 January 2012. The code is available on the DEFRA website at:
Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that annual inspection charges do not undermine the competitiveness of the UK poultry industry. 
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the frequency of waste collection is, broken down by local authorities which (a) directly operate and (b) subcontract the operation of pyrolysis plants. 
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (ERA) places a duty on all waste collection authorities to arrange for the collection of household waste, but does not stipulate how often collections should occur. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions on the waste management strategy for their communities and how these are undertaken.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of materials collected for recycling were exported overseas in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what measures are taken to ensure that such materials are processed for recycling once they have left the country. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Accurate information is not available. All exported waste must be of a certain quality and be for recycling or reuse. It is for producers, local authorities and their waste management contractors to ensure that their waste is properly managed through all the steps in the recycling chain, including its final destination.
The Environment Agency detects and prevents the illegal export of waste at major UK ports through intelligence-led, targeted inspections. Enforcement action is taken where evidence of illegal activity is found.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information his Department has on specific problems related to recycling of waste by the school and college sector. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Under section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 local authorities have a duty to collect waste from education establishments, if requested to do so, free of disposal charges. Those that use local authority waste collection services can ask to be included in the recycling service provided by the local authority. However, schools and colleges are free to make whatever arrangements they see fit for waste management. There are a number of mechanisms they can use to include recycling even where they have existing long term waste contracts that must be honoured. These include engaging community groups or even setting up their own in-house schemes. Due to the quantities of waste involved this often means they have fewer problems than others. The primary factor determining whether or not a school or college recycles is the will to do it.
In addition, the Waste and Resources Action Programme is currently redeveloping an existing schools programme, previously run by Waste Watch. The campaign has been revamped to link more closely with the messages of the Recycle Now campaign and increase its effectiveness.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been allocated for school recycling projects in England; and if he will make a statement. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|