|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects the order on the 42 days pre-movement testing for TB to come into effect; whether the order applies to all cattle inspections; what consultation took place with
the industry prior to the orders introduction; what the objectives of the order are; and what plans there are (a) to review its implementation and (b) to assess its efficacy and proportionality. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Statutory pre-movement testing was introduced in March 2006 for cattle over 15 months old moving from high-risk herds. Legislation extends this to cattle over 42 days old on 1 March 2007.
The purpose of pre-movement testing is to reduce the risk of the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB) through movements of cattle, both within regions of England where disease is endemic and particularly to areas that are currently free of disease.
There was a public consultation in 2004 on options for preventing the spread of TB through cattle movements. Following that, an independent group of interested parties developed a detailed proposal and its report was published in April 2005. The TB Advisory Group presented its report on pre-movement testing in January.
Most recently, pre-movement testing was considered by the Ministerial Challenge Panel for Regulation. It agreed that, in light of the best evidence currently available, extension of the pre-movement testing policy to younger animals should proceed on 1 March as planned.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to meet the president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association to discuss the Government's plans for tackling bovine TB. 
Mr. Bradshaw: I have no current plans to meet with the president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA). My officials have regular dialogue with the BCVA as well as with other interested parties.
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations he plans to undertake on the proposals in the Bovine Tuberculosis Advisory Committees report. 
Mr. Bradshaw: A report setting out the TB Advisory Groups advice to Defra Ministers and the Chief Veterinary Officer on the practical delivery and impacts of pre-movement testing was published by Defra on 16 January.
The recommendations in the report are for consideration by both the Government and industry. We will work in partnership to take this forward. My Department will respond to the TB Advisory Group in due course.
Mr. Bradshaw: The overriding objective of cost sharing in relation to the livestock sector is to achieve better management of animal disease risks, through better policy making, so that the overall risks and costs are reduced. Responsibility sharing will provide opportunities for improved regulation and a reduction in the regulatory burden in future. The Government will benefit from increased industry involvement in decision making, which should mean a greater ability to respond and deliver outcomes more effectively and efficiently. Defra is currently consulting on the principles which should underpin the development of this partnership approach.
The position in relation to crop diseases is the subject of a parallel programme of work. The Government and industry have jointly funded an independent study of options for responsibility and cost sharing in relation to plant health controls to help inform the development of future policy. The study is due to report its findings at the end of June. The overall aim of this work is to identify measures which would improve the overall management of plant pest and disease risks through partnership working.
Martin Horwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2007, Official Report, columns 303-04W, on flood defences, whether the long-term cost of protecting nuclear power stations from the risk of flooding was taken into account in the Governments Energy Review of July 2006. 
Flood defence management costs were considered as part of the Energy Review. Flood defence management costs are site specific and based on estimates by the Environment Agency, where they occur, they are likely to be small compared to the total capital costs of a nuclear power station.
Any new nuclear power stations would be proposed, developed, constructed and operated by the private sector. Any flood defence costs would be a matter for operators should they decide to bring forward proposals for new nuclear power stations.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the application in two-tier local authorities of fines under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. 
Mr. Bradshaw: All waste disposal authorities in England met their obligations in 2005-06 to landfill within the limits of their allowances. No penalties have been imposed under the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme. Only waste disposal authorities are liable to any penalties arising from transgression of the Schemes rules.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent meetings he has held with European colleagues to discuss the implementation of the 1999 EU Laying Hens Directive. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Council Directive 1999/74/EC, which lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, is implemented in England through The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the environmental damage to wildlife, reefs and fisheries following the beaching of the MSC Napoli. 
I can confirm that the reports in the press of hundreds of dead fish are unfounded. None of the local authority personnel cleaning up the beaches, nor volunteers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) picking up birds, have reported any dead fish. Neither have local fishermen. There is also no evidence that fish and shellfish have been seriously affected. Samples have, however, been taken to monitor the accumulation of any contaminants that may have been released.
Currently, a contractor has been brought in to take away the containers on the beach and the local authority has started cleaning up litter. After consultation with the Environment Agency (EA), arrangements have been put in place for the safe disposal of all waste from the beaches, including that contaminated with oil.
As for monitoring, water samples taken by the EA show no signs of pollution from the oil, pesticides, or other chemicals from the vessel. However, monitoring activity will continue on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much (a) the Environment Agency and (b) English Nature spent on programme expenditure in Canterbury local authority area in the most recent year for which figures are available. 
Barry Gardiner: The Southern Region of the Environment Agency covers most of the geographical areas of Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and records its expenditure in relation to those areas. Expenditure is recorded within an area by technical or operation teams that have specific operational boundaries that normally relate to river catchments and covers a number of functions. Therefore the information is not available in the form specified in the question.
Expenditure on Flood Risk Management is recorded for each flood risk system. These systems cross local authority boundaries. Expenditure for the Canterbury area for 2006-07 is shown in the following table.
Water Resources programmed expenditure within the district council for 2006-07 is as follows. These are only indicative costs, as the Water Resources work programme is not delivered according to district council boundaries.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of TB in the deer population; and what action he is taking to tackle the disease. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Assessment of bTB in the deer population has been the subject of Defra-commissioned research by the Central Science Laboratory (CSL). It identified four species of wild deer infected with the disease:
roe deer (1.0 per cent. of 885 tested);
red deer (1.0 per cent. of 196);
fallow deer (4.4 per cent. of 504); and
muntjac (5.2 per cent. of 58).
Subsequent qualitative risk assessments carried out by CSL and Risk Solutions suggested that the contribution of wild deer to cattle infection is small (less than 5 per cent.), but that more data was needed to enable firmer conclusions to be drawn. Therefore Defra is currently carrying out detailed research into the disease prevalence and density of deer species in areas of high cattle incidence through a sampling survey.
Under the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 (as amended), suspicion of TB in any deer (or their carcases), whether farmed, park or wild must be notified to the relevant Divisional Veterinary Manager of the State Veterinary Service. Surveillance of bTB in deer is largely based on detection of visible lesions at post-mortem inspection carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service on farmed deer and wild/park deer destined for export.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the efficacy and timeliness of the supply of compost bins under the Waste and Resources Action Programme campaign Recycle Now. 
Mr. Bradshaw: Working with local authorities and other partners, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) distributed 1.167 million home compost bins up to 31 December 2006. 624,000 compost bins were distributed in the 2006 calendar year. Of these, 98.9 per cent. were delivered within the advertised 28 day period.
Research conducted by WRAP has demonstrated that the average diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill attributable to each bin is 220 kilograms per household per year for new composters and 60 kilograms per year for existing composters. With the average mix of new to existing composters experienced by the programme so far, the average diversion per bin is currently estimated as 145 kilograms per household. This suggests that the total annual diversion capacity from the programme is of the order of 170,000 tonnes. A full assessment will be published at the end of WRAPs current business plan period in April 2008.
Mr. Heald: To ask the Leader of the House how much the Privy Council Office spent on advertising, including advertorials and advertising features with The Guardian newspaper, including online, in the last year for which figures are available. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|