| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Jun 2007 : Column 1664W—continued
Lessons Learned from Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak Inquiry
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was of the 2001 inquiry into Foot and Mouth disease. [143709]
Mr. Bradshaw: There were two independent inquiries into the 2001 Foot and Mouth Crisis: a Lessons Learned Inquiry, chaired by Dr. Iain Anderson, and a scientific review by the Royal Society, chaired by Sir Brian Follett. The costs of the inquiries were as follows:
| £ | |
Livestock: Transport
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance or regulations his Department has issued for the maximum and minimum acceptable temperatures for the rearing and transportation of livestock. [143567]
Mr. Bradshaw: The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 do not specify a maximum and minimum temperature for the rearing of livestock, but do require temperatures to be kept within limits which are not harmful to the animals.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, implemented in England by The Welfare of
Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006, requires all transporters of livestock to avoid animals suffering from extremes of temperature. For journeys of more than eight hours, vehicles must be designed to maintain temperatures of between 5°C and 30°C (+/- 5°C). However, for journeys solely within the UK, we have a derogation from the lower end of the scale until the time the vehicle is first moved and during any loading/unloading at intermediate points. This is because livestock often housed outdoors are accustomed to cold weather and the animals’ body heat quickly raises the temperature above 0°C.
Animal Health will write to transporters of farm livestock and horses with additional hot weather advice and to remind them of their responsibilities.
Lorries
Mr. Bacon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether his Department plans to take steps to prevent supermarket chains from stipulating that deliveries to their stores are made by HGVs of at least 7.5 tonnes gross weight; and if he will make a statement. [142642]
Ian Pearson: I have no plans to do so.
National Bee Unit: Finance
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget of the National Bee Unit at the Central Science Laboratory was in each of the last five years for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [142277]
Barry Gardiner: The budget for the Central Science Laboratory National Bee Unit for the last five years is as follows:
| Financial year | Budget |
| Notes: 1. Budget (= income) comprises DEFRA and Welsh Assembly government expenditure under memorandums of understanding with the CSL, DEFRA commissioned research plus an element of commercial income. 2. Income for 2007-08 is estimated. | |
National Bee Unit: Manpower
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in the National Bee Unit at the Central Science Laboratory in each of the last five years for which records are available. [142280]
Barry Gardiner: The number of people employed in the Central Science Laboratory National Bee Unit in the last five years is as follows:
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government intend to publish the legal advice they have received on the decision to merge Nirex and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [141783]
Ian Pearson: The fact and substance of legal advice to the Government is confidential. It is covered by legal professional privilege. To enable the Government to obtain full and frank legal advice it is not disclosed. Therefore, the Government do not intend to publish the legal advice they have received on the decision to merge Nirex and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Pigs: EC Action
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions he has had with EU Ministers about the use of farrowing crates for nursing pigs; and if he will make a statement. [144002]
Mr. Bradshaw: I have regular discussions with European Union (EU) ministers on a range of issues, including animal welfare. DEFRA would prefer to avoid the close confinement of all sows, but there are currently no free-farrowing systems suitable for widespread commercial adoption. Farrowing crates protect piglets from being crushed by the sow—one of the largest causes of pig mortality. It is equally important to maintain the welfare of the piglet as that of the sow.
There is a time limit on how long sows may be kept in farrowing crates: from seven days before the predicted day of farrowing until the piglets are weaned. After this period sows in the UK must be moved back to loose housing accommodation in which they are free to turn around easily.
We have funded research to test and develop commercially viable farrowing systems that provide adequate protection to piglets but do not closely confine the sow. As yet, the risk of piglet mortality in alternative systems remains unacceptably high. Our research will contribute to the European Food Safety Authority's examination of a range of issues, including farrowing systems, leading up to the next review of the EU Directive on pig welfare.
Radioactive Wastes: Waste Management
Mr. Watson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make it his policy to amend the Energy Act 2004 as it relates to the responsibilities of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority in response to the Fourth Report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee: Radioactive Waste Management: an Update. [141780]
Ian Pearson: We are considering the report and will respond within the normal timetable.
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will review the proposed relationship between the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the successor body to the Committee of Radioactive Waste Management in response to the Fourth Report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee: Radioactive Waste Management: an Update, HL 109. [141782]
Ian Pearson: We are considering the report and will respond within the normal timetable.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how members of (a) the Criteria Proposals Group and (b) the Criteria Review Panel responsible for deciding the scientific criteria for initial screening of areas unsuitable for a geological repository for long-lived radioactive waste were chosen; what criteria were used in selecting the membership; and what budget has been allocated to service each group and panel. [143770]
Ian Pearson: The Criteria Proposals Group (CPG) and Criteria Review Panel (CRP) were established on the basis of recommendations from the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Geological Society, and the DEFRA Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir Howard Dalton. Both were ad-hoc groups charged with developing criteria for inclusion in the forthcoming Managing Radioactive Waste Safely consultation document. CPG, led by Professor Peter Styles of Keele university, developed draft criteria. Its proposals were independently reviewed by CRP, led by Professor Howard Wheater of Imperial college, London. Selection of members of the groups was made on the basis of the need to involve high calibre expertise across the range of earth science and related disciplines. Members of the two groups were paid a daily rate for their work. The cost of the work is currently estimated to be of the order of £40,000.
Waste Management: Standards
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what savings have been achieved on each of the business resource efficiency and waste efficiency targets in 2006-07; and if he will make a statement; [143214]
(2) what the cost per tonne was for reductions made by the business resource efficiency and waste programme in (a) waste to landfill, (b) hazardous waste and (c) water; and how much carbon dioxide has been saved under the programme since its inception. [143215]
Mr. Bradshaw: Delivery bodies conducting programmes under the wider business resource efficiency and waste programme (BREW) report on a number of environmental and business-based 'metrics' covering:
Environmental:
i) reduction of greenhouse gas or equivalents
ii) virgin raw materials saved
iii) reduced hazardous waste arisings
iv) decreased water usage
v) waste diverted from landfill
Business:
vi) cost savings
vii) new business sales
The metrics system was developed during the first year of the programme and is still being worked on to ensure a greater level of consistency in the methodologies used by different delivery bodies. As the methodology has not yet been perfected, the year one (2005-06) results are being viewed with caution and should only be used to give an indication of the savings being made. There are areas of the programme where the work cannot be measured against the metrics. For example, the Environment Agency work to reduce flytipping, if successful, could increase the amount of waste sent to landfill.
The aggregated results for 2005-06, for the delivery bodies which reported in-year savings against some or all of the metrics, are shown in the following table. It is important to note that there will also be savings from these interventions in future years not counted here:
| Metric | In-year result | Cost per unit reduction for these in-year results (£) |
| (1) For consistency, the delivery bodies that have reported in carbon dioxide have had their figures converted to carbon. Their carbon dioxide figures were multiplied by 12/44. | ||
Work is currently underway to assess the impact of programme spending in 2006-07.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Business Resource Efficiency and Waste Organisation's budget was for 2005-06; and what it is planned to be in 2006-07. [143258]
Mr. Bradshaw: DEFRA's business resource efficiency and waste (BREW) programme is returning £284 million raised from the landfill tax escalator back to businesses between 2005 and 2008 to improve their resource efficiency and to minimise the levels of waste that are unnecessarily sent to landfill.
Funds are awarded to a number of regional and national BREW delivery bodies. A total of £33 million was allocated in 2005-06 and £100.7 million was allocated in the 2006-07 financial year for spending on business resource efficiency activities in England.
Deputy Prime Minister
Departments: Data Protection
Grant Shapps: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times his Department has been found to have been in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 since its establishment; and if he will make a statement. [139235]
The Deputy Prime Minister: My Department is not aware of having been found to be in breach of the Data Protection Act since its establishment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |