House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 08 May 2007 (pt 0009)

8 May 2007 : Column 36W—continued

Departments: India

Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Ministers in his Department have visited India in the last 12 months; on how many occasions each Minister visited India; and what the length was of each visit. [135551]

Barry Gardiner: The Government publish an annual list of Cabinet Ministers' travel overseas costing over £500 along with the total cost of all ministerial travel. Information for 2005-06 was published on 24 July 2006 and is available in the Library of the House. Information for 2006-07 will be published as soon as it is ready.

All travel is in accordance with the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers.

Departments: Official Hospitality

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent on hospitality by his Department in the financial year 2006-07. [133255]

Barry Gardiner: From information held centrally, the core-Department’s expenditure on hospitality in 2006-07 was £309,634.

All hospitality expenditure incurred by the Department is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety that is based on principles set out in Government Accounting.

Departments: Public Expenditure

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on the future funding of his Department's science budget. [136080]

8 May 2007 : Column 37W

Mr. Bradshaw: The Department's Research and Development budget has been stable over this comprehensive spending review period at £146 million per annum. The sum in future is unknown, but it is our hope and expectation that this level of funding will be maintained through the comprehensive spending review 2007 period.

Departments: Sexual Harassment

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints of sexual harassment have been investigated in his Department in the last 12 months; and how many complaints have been upheld. [135371]

Barry Gardiner: The figures for this information relate to core DEFRA and the following agencies: the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and Animal Health.

The internal formal equal opportunities complaints procedures are on DEFRA’s intranet site, and all staff have access to them.

Under the aforementioned procedures, in the last 12 months, no complaints of sexual harassment were made, investigated or upheld.

EC Environmental Policy

Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to implement the EU Environmental Liability Directive; whether he anticipates obstacles to its transposition; and if he will make a statement. [135363]

Ian Pearson: The Government completed the first of two public consultations (on policy options for transposing) at the end of February. Following analysis of consultation responses, the way forward is currently being considered. The second consultation (on draft legislation) is planned to take place later in the year. The Government wish to implement the Directive as soon as possible, and do not anticipate obstacles to the transposition. However, they also want to ensure optimum stakeholder engagement. Taking account of all the required processes, implementation is expected during spring 2008.

Flood Control: East Anglia

Mr. Anthony Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding was allocated to sea and flood defence projects in (a) Great Yarmouth and (b) the East Anglian coastline in each of the last five years. [135177]

8 May 2007 : Column 38W

Ian Pearson: Since 2003, the Environment Agency has spent over £143 million on flood risk management in East Anglia (Eastern Regional Flood Defence Committee Region which encompasses Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex).

The following table shows expenditure on flood defences in Great Yarmouth and East Anglia in each financial year since 2003.

£
	Environment Agency		DEFRA funding to local authorities
	Great Yarmouth	East Anglia	Great Yarmouth	East Anglia
2003-04	450,000	5,760,000	0	74,000
2004-05	250,000	5,160,000	0	201,000
2005-06	30,000	5,590,000	0	947,000
2006-07	270,000	5,730,000	0	0

The local authority figures do not include funding for works to protect against coastal erosion which also often provide significant benefit in terms of reducing flood risk from the sea.

Food: Labelling

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which categories of foods require an indication of country of origin on labels under statute. [135247]

Barry Gardiner: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has overall policy lead on labelling and has prepared guidance on country of origin labelling. Under general labelling rules, country of origin is required only where purchasers might otherwise be misled. However, there are specific requirements for origin information within the following food groups under European legislation:

Beef and veal

Poultry meat from third countries

Fish and shellfish (whether pre-packed or loose)

Fresh fruit and vegetables

Wine

Eggs

Honey

Olive Oil

Inland Waterways: Repairs and Maintenance

Charlotte Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many locks, lock gates, sluices and other pieces of machinery on the waterways were inoperable for more than 24 hours in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006; and how many have been inoperable in 2007. [134601]

Barry Gardiner [holding answer 3 May 2007]: This information is not collected centrally. British Waterways is responsible for maintaining more than 11,000 Principal Assets (including weirs and lock chambers) and 12,000 non principal assets (such as small weirs, small culverts) across its waterways network.

While it has a well developed asset management programme, recording the condition of individual structures and the planned maintenance for them,
8 May 2007 : Column 39W
some assets on the 200-year-old system do fail unexpectedly. In these cases, British Waterways takes a risk-based approach to prioritising repairs. Other factors may also be taken into account, such as the need for specialist plant and machinery to be brought to a remote site, or permission from third parties for access.

Charlotte Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many miles of canal and inland waterways will not be dredged in the 2007-08 financial year which were previously planned to be dredged. [134602]

Barry Gardiner [holding answer 3 May 2007]: The three DEFRA-sponsored navigation authorities (British Waterways, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority) are not making any cuts to their dredging programmes for 2007-8. In fact, there may be more dredging carried out than planned. For example, the Broads Authority has put in place an enhanced dredging programme.

Lighting: Waste Disposal

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions he has had with (a) local authorities, (b) the Environment Agency, (c) the Health and Safety Executive and (d) the waste industry regarding the safe disposal of energy efficient light bulbs; and if he will make a statement. [132759]

Mr. Bradshaw [holding answer 24 April 2007]: From 1 July this year, energy efficient light bulbs that are separately collected will need to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006. The regulations require producers to finance the collection, treatment and recycling of WEEE, including energy efficient light bulbs.

The WEEE regulations have been the subject of extensive consultation with all interested parties, although there have been no separate discussions on energy efficient light bulbs.

Guidance on “Best Available Treatment, Recovery and Recycling Techniques and Treatment of WEEE” is available on the DEFRA website.

Livestock Industry

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average (a) dairy herd and (b) beef herd size was in (i) the UK, (ii) England and Wales and (iii) each county in each year since 1997. [135237]

Barry Gardiner: The following tables show the average size of dairy and beef herds in England by county for 2002 to 2006. These are the figures which are most readily available. Figures for Wales fall under the jurisdiction of the devolved authority.

8 May 2007 : Column 40W

8 May 2007 : Column 41W

8 May 2007 : Column 42W

(a) Average dairy herd size in England by county
	Average dairy cows per herd
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees	88	91	88	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
South Teesside	56	59	59	64	52
Darlington	85	⁽¹⁾—	88	⁽¹⁾—	87
Durham CC	62	60	57	54	57
Northumberland	87	90	89	84	76
Tyneside	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	57	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Sunderland	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0	0
West Cumbria	82	82	80	82	85
East Cumbria	83	85	84	84	85
Halton and Warrington	⁽¹⁾—	107	104	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Cheshire CC	111	116	114	115	113
Greater Manchester South	66	70	72	65	62
Greater Manchester North	59	61	59	61	65
Blackburn with Darwen	54	⁽¹⁾—	54	⁽¹⁾—	56
Blackpool	0	0	0	0	⁽¹⁾—
Lancashire CC	82	84	84	85	85
East Merseyside	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Liverpool	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0
Sefton	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Wirral	124	⁽¹⁾—	128	⁽¹⁾—	126
Kingston upon Hull, City of	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
East Riding of Yorkshire	68	⁽¹⁾—	66	⁽¹⁾—	63
North And North East Lincolnshire	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	28	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
York	62	72	65	⁽¹⁾—	67
North Yorkshire CC	74	77	78	78	77
Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham	73	74	71	72	74
Sheffield	58	⁽¹⁾—	58	⁽¹⁾—	62
Bradford	63	⁽¹⁾—	63	⁽¹⁾—	67
Leeds	63	⁽¹⁾—	72	⁽¹⁾—	73
Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield	60	66	68	68	66
Derby	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
East Derbyshire	57	57	59	55	52
South and West Derbyshire	76	78	78	76	76
Nottingham	0	0	0	0	0
North Nottinghamshire	90	95	96	89	91
South Nottinghamshire	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	81	⁽¹⁾—	93
Leicester	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Leicestershire CC and Rutland	96	102	97	92	90
Northamptonshire	92	93	86	84	79
Lincolnshire	83	88	85	80	79
Herefordshire, County of	81	⁽¹⁾—	85	⁽¹⁾—	77
Worcestershire	77	⁽¹⁾—	80	76	80
Warwickshire	75	75	72	70	68
Telford and Wrekin	101	⁽¹⁾—	104	⁽¹⁾—	107
Shropshire CC	92	95	96	95	96
Stoke-on-Trent	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	57
Staffordshire CC	83	86	87	85	87
Birmingham	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	20	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Solihull	97	⁽¹⁾—	88	⁽¹⁾—	87
Coventry	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Dudley and Sandwell	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	29	⁽¹⁾—	40
Walsall and Wolverhampton	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0	0
Peterborough	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Cambridgeshire CC	57	56	60	50	55
Norfolk	82	85	84	83	76
Suffolk	74	72	68	61	55
Luton	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0
Bedfordshire CC	67	74	72	77	69
Hertfordshire	78	70	65	53	59
Southend-on-Sea	0	0	0	0	0
Thurrock	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Essex CC	84	90	81	80	78
Inner London-West	0	0	0	0	0
Inner London-East	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Outer London—East and North East	0	0	0	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Outer London—South	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Outer London—West and North West	88	⁽¹⁾—	79	⁽¹⁾—	90
Berkshire	124	130	128	122	121
Milton Keynes	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	96	⁽¹⁾—	80
Buckinghamshire CC	103	107	108	98	92
Oxfordshire	102	108	108	103	92
Brighton and Hove	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
East Sussex CC	90	88	83	79	78
Surrey	96	103	104	93	92
West Sussex	109	113	111	113	112
Portsmouth	0	0	0	0	⁽¹⁾—
Southampton	0	0	0	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Hampshire CC	100	103	105	106	102
Isle of Wight	82	⁽¹⁾—	81	⁽¹⁾—	80
Medway	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0	⁽¹⁾—	0
Kent CC	91	97	91	86	91
Bristol, City of	0	0	0	0	⁽¹⁾—
North and N E Somerset, South Gloucester	91	94	93	95	94
Gloucestershire	90	93	91	93	90
Swindon	103	⁽¹⁾—	99	⁽¹⁾—	92
Wiltshire CC	105	107	106	107	106
Bournemouth and Poole	0	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Dorset CC	113	116	114	114	113
Somerset	99	103	102	102	103
Cornwall and Isles of Scilly	75	79	78	76	77
Plymouth	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	0
Torbay	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—	⁽¹⁾—
Devon CC	80	83	82	82	83
England	87	90	88	88	87
⁽¹⁾ Suppressed to prevent disclosure of information about individual holdings. Data for 2002, 2003 and 2005 are complied from a large published datasets; these are treated each year to ensure confidentiality across every geographical level from country to ward hence the differing pattern of suppression in those years. Notes: 1. Dairy/beef cows are any cows or heifers that have calved including cull cows. Dairy and beef herd replacements are not included nor are cattle intended for slaughter. 2. Some holdings may have both dairy and beef cows and will therefore be included in the holding counts of both categories. 3. Estimates have been made for holdings not responding or not selected for the survey. Source: June Agricultural Survey

Next Section

Index

Home Page