| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 May 2007 : Column 1410W—continued
This is the additional capital expenditure on new assets. As part of their base expenditure, companies also maintain the assets installed previously to reduce pesticides and nitrates levels, and also incur the costs of operating these water treatment plants. Ofwat does not collect this information separately.
Ofwat publishes a summary of its assumptions when setting price limits for each investment period. For 2000-05, the assumed need for capital investment to address exceptional problems of deteriorating raw water quality, the majority of which was for reducing pesticides and nitrate level, was £200 million (in 2005-06 prices, inflated using the construction outputs price index). There were changes agreed to this programme with the Drinking Water Inspectorate during the investment period to reflect changes in the risks of failure to meet drinking water standards.
For 2005-10, Ofwat assumed additional capital expenditure for reducing pesticides levels of £86 million and nitrate levels of £340 million (2005-06 prices, inflated using the construction outputs price index) along with associated operating costs of £8 million each year. These are the additional costs of new treatment or blending plant. The maintenance and operating costs of existing treatment plant are included in the base service provided by the water companies.
EC Environmental Policy
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which European Environmental Directives have been (a) agreed and (b) published since 1 January 2006; and what the date or planned date of transposition is of each. [137863]
Ian Pearson: Between 1 January 2006 and 30 April 2007, 10 European Union (EU) directives for which my Department has responsibility for implementation were adopted. These are shown in the following table.
I am placing in the Library of the House a list which itemises the directives adopted together with:
(a) the EU deadline for transposition into domestic legislation.
(b) where, appropriate, the final or expected United Kingdom transposition date.
Details of all Directives in force can be found on the Eur-Lex database available on the EU’s website.
EU Emissions Trading Scheme
Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the extent of the reduction in (a) UK and (b) EU emissions which will result from the first phase of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme. [137524]
Ian Pearson: The approved UK National Allocation Plan (NAP) for Phase I (2005-07) of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is set to deliver carbon dioxide emissions savings of around 65 million tonnes (roughly 8 per cent.) below the projected business-as-usual emissions of the installations covered by the scheme during phase I. The rationale behind emission trading is to ensure that the emission reductions take place where the cost of the reduction is lowest, thus lowering the overall costs of tackling climate change. The aforementioned emission reductions referred to may not, therefore, all take place in the UK.
As phase I has not yet finished, it is difficult to quantify what the overall emission reductions will be across the EU. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and others has suggested that emission reductions (abatement) across the EU resulting from the implementation of EU ETS in 2005 could be somewhere in the region of 50MtCO2 to 200MtCO2. A survey by Point Carbon showed that about two-thirds of the 800 or so EU ETS participants who responded stated they had initiated internal abatement projects as a result of the EU ETS. Another survey for the European Commission conducted by McKinsey and Ecofys also found that the EU ETS is impacting on corporate behaviour. Based on this scheme, CO2 involves a real cost. About half the companies already ‘price in’ the value of CO2 allowances and over 70 per cent. intend to do so in the future.
Floods
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with the Survey Association on flood prevention. [138691]
Ian Pearson: My Department has not held discussions with the Survey Association on flood prevention to date.
Fly-tipping: Databases
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fly-tipping incidents were reported through the Flycapture database by each local authority in their most recent returns. [138255]
Mr. Bradshaw: As it is quite lengthy, I am arranging for copies of the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House.
Data for 2006-2007 have not yet been finalised, but will be available in the summer.
Data reflect the particular circumstances of the local authority area. As a result of Best Value Performance Indicator 199d on fly-tipping, local authorities are now being monitored for their performance in reducing overall incident numbers and increasing the amount of enforcement activity, year on year. Flycapture was always intended to be used as a management information tool to help target action, rather than to produce ‘league tables’.
Grazing Land: Fences
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what responsibilities farmers have to ensure that livestock are controlled with stockproof fences around their land. [138412]
Mr. Bradshaw: Farmers have a duty of care to protect the welfare of their livestock under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Additionally, there is legislation requiring farmers to control their animals. Section 155 of the Highways Act 1980 provides that where livestock are found straying or lying on or at the side of the highway, the owner is guilty of an offence and is liable for expenses incurred in any subsequent transportation and care for the livestock.
Section 4 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that where livestock stray onto private land, the owner of the livestock will be liable for any damage done by the livestock to the land or property, including expenses incurred if the owner of the land detains the livestock. In some circumstances the livestock may also be sold to cover such costs.
Mineral Waters
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his estimate is of the number of litres of bottled (a) sparkling and (b) still water consumed in the UK in each year since 2002; and what percentage was supplied in (i) plastic, (ii) glass and (iii) other materials. [137609]
Ian Pearson: The following table shows the estimated number of litres of mineral water consumed in the UK in each year since 2002.
| April to March each year | Total UK consumption of mineral water (million litres) |
DEFRA does not collect statistics which distinguish between sparkling and still water or the way water is packaged.
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects the review of nitrate vulnerable zone designations to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [137859]
Ian Pearson: A review of Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) designations in England is nearly complete. It is our intention to publish national-level maps illustrating the conclusions of the review in the forthcoming consultation on amendments to the NVZ Action Programme.
Chris Huhne:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms
there are in nitrate vulnerable zones in England, broken down by region; and what the (a) size and (b) location is of each farm. [137860]
Ian Pearson: The Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) designated in 1996 and 2002 cover approximately 55 per cent. of England’s land area. An estimate of the number of holdings located within these NVZs, broken down by region and size, is provided in the following table.
It is not possible to provide personal data (i.e. the size or location of each farm) due to issues of confidentiality.
| Size of holding (total farmed area in hectares) | |||||||
| Region | 0 | >0 to <5 | 5 to <20 | 20 to <50 | 50 to <100 | 100 + | Total |
It should be noted that the figures contained in the aforementioned table are estimates based upon the June Agricultural Census 2005 (DEFRA), which only seeks data from a proportion of holdings each year. In the Agricultural Census data the location of each holding is represented by a single point. If that point falls within the current NVZ boundary the area of the entire holding is included in these figures. If the point is outside the boundary no land is included.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |