|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make it his policy to include in the advertising for warm front vouchers the amount of each voucher which will be spent on administration fees. 
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if his Department will publish a timetable for the proposed passage of the draft Marine Bill through parliamentary scrutiny. 
Jonathan Shaw: The Government are committed to publishing a draft Marine Bill as part of the legislative programme in this 2007-08 session of Parliament. We expect this will be in the spring of 2008. The timetable for the introduction of a Marine Bill to, and passage through, Parliament will be subject to the outcome of public scrutiny of the draft Bill and the availability of parliamentary time
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the effect on costs of dairy farmers of the operation of the Nitrates directive. 
Mr. Woolas: The partial regulatory impact assessment and supporting paper G4-Assistance in the partial RIA including extended Nitrate Vulnerable Zones provide details of my Departments assessment of the likely impact on farming in England of the proposed Nitrates Action programme measures.
These assessments estimate the likely cost to the dairy sector of implementing the proposed Nitrates Action programme as approximately £32.5 million-£42.1 million per year assuming that the Action programme is applied within Nitrate Vulnerable Zones covering 70 per cent. of England. Costs would be higher if the decision was taken to apply the Action programme to the whole of England. These costs would be reduced if my Department was successful in obtaining a derogation from the 170kgN/ha/yr whole farm limit for livestock manures, one of the more burdensome requirements of the proposals.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of opium poppy production for medicinal use was in the UK in each year since 2001; and if he will make a statement. 
Most of this material is imported under licence in the form of concentrate of poppy straw from Australia, Turkey and Spain. Since 2001, the UK manufacturer of opium poppy based medicines has grown a small proportion of its total requirement of poppy material domestically in order to spread the sourcing risk.
|(1 )research only|
Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of British companies had a turnover of less than £2 million and produced less than 50 tonnes of packaging a year in the latest period for which figures are available. 
Joan Ruddock: Less than 1 per cent. of companies have a turnover of more than £2 million and produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging. This is the threshold at which they must be registered in accordance with the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007.
David Maclean: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by his Department on research on (a) rabbits and (b) squirrels in each of the last five years. 
DEFRA has not funded any research on grey squirrels over the last five years. However, the Forestry
Commission contributed £20,000 a year in 2006-07 and 2007-08 to a DEFRA project on fertility control in wildlife.
Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that relevant businesses are aware of the legal requirement to carry a waste carrier licence. 
Joan Ruddock: There is no present legal requirement for businesses to carry or display their waste carrier registration certificate. Businesses that carry waste with a view to profit, with certain specified exceptions, are required to be registered as such with the Environment Agency. Proof of registration can be required by a local authority or the Environment Agency. Waste carriers are allowed seven days to produce this information.
The waste carrier registration and waste duty of care regimes, including existing regulations and related guidance, are currently being reviewed with a view to simplifying and modernising the requirements. The review was set up in response to concerns from key stakeholders that the existing system was not effectively ensuring the safe and legal handling of waste. The Environment Agency has also found that levels of awareness, especially among small businesses is very low.
An initial consultation on proposed changes closed on 6 March 2007. A summary of responses was published in July 2007 which will help to inform a second consultation, planned for the early part of 2008. A communications strategy is currently being formulated to raise awareness of the new regimes among a number of different sectors. We have commissioned Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS) to carry out research into the attitudes of small businesses in order to understand what methods of awareness-raising would work on this hard-to-reach audience. Results should be available at the end of 2007.
In terms of awareness, the Environment Agency is promoting waste carrier registration through its Business Resource Efficiency and Waste crime programme and NetRegs. NetRegs is a partnership between the UK environmental regulatorsthe Environment Agency in England and Wales, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland. Netregs produces guidance by business type for 105 industries and guidance by environmental topic. NetRegs main target audience are small and medium sized enterprises and unregulated businesses considered most likely to damage the environment, in particular construction, agriculture and manufacturing.
Jonathan Shaw: Scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea in 2004 suggested that the bass stock is fished sustainably. On 25 October I announced a review of bass nursery areas and inshore netting restrictions. The next step will be to engage stakeholders on how and when to take this work forward collaboratively during 2008. Details of my announcement are set out in the autumn 2007 edition of Fishing Focus, available in the Library of the House.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what meetings have been held since July 2007 involving (a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department with representatives of the Jewish community to discuss (i) anti-semitism in England, (ii) security of the Jewish community in England and (iii) measures to tackle anti-semitism; what the (A) location and (B) duration of each meeting was; whether a record of each meeting was kept; who attended each meeting; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Dhanda: I met representatives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust. Issues concerning the Jewish community were discussed, as well as the All Party Inquiry follow up and security matters affecting the Jewish community.
Both meetings took place at CLGs offices and lasted approximately 30 minutes. The first meeting included CPU officials, representatives from all three organisations and myself. The second meeting was between Lord Janner and myself.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will carry out regular assessments of the level of anti-semitism in England; what recent representations she has received on the issue; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Dhanda: The Department for Communities and Local Government does not carry out assessments on the level of antisemitism in the UK. Hate crime of this nature is a matter the police take seriously. There is good cooperation between the Community Safety Trust and police forces in areas with a significant Jewish community.
The Government are taking forward the recommendations made by the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into anti-semitism. CLG is also providing £20,000 to The Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism to take the form of inquiry (cross-party) to other countries. CLG is also providing £20,000 towards researching the impact of antisemitic discourse on the general atmosphere of acceptance of antisemitism. CLG have also facilitated meetings
between the All Party Inquiry and officials working on tension monitoring and the Citizenship Survey.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what definition her Department uses of Jewish stakeholders; whom she consulted on this definition; what representations she has received on this definition; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Dhanda: In common with other communities, Jewish stakeholders are those organisations and individuals who have an identified interest and/or contribution to make on a particular issue. This is determined on a case by case basis. No representations on this definition have been received.
Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the membership of the cross-government working group on anti-Semitism is; on how many occasions the group has met; which (a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) others have attended; what the (i) location and (ii) duration of each meeting was; whether a record of each meeting was kept; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Dhanda: The cross-government working group on anti-Semitism is made up of officials from Communities and Local Government, the Home Office, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Ministry of Justice, Attorney-Generals Office, Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan police, the Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust. The group has met twice, no Ministers have attended the meetings only officials and representatives from the departments and other organisations mentioned above. The working group met at Community and Local Government offices, meetings lasted 90 minutes and a record is kept.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which local authorities have applied for places on the Round 5 and 6 Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) programmes; how much funding each has applied for; which of them have been granted places on the programme and for how much funding in each case; which of them have set up ALMOs; which ALMOs have been inspected; what the result of each inspection was; which have been allocated funding following the inspection; and how much has been allocated in each case. 
Mr. Iain Wright:
The following table sets out the local authorities who have applied for places on Rounds 5 and 6 of the ALMO programme. All Round 5 bidders have been accepted onto the programme, although a decision has yet to be reached on those who
submitted applications under Round 6. The table sets out the funding each ALMO has bid for and how much has been allocated, up to 2007-08, to those round five bidders who have been successful at inspection.
|Round 5||Funding applied for (£)||Inspection outcome||Funding allocated to 2007-08 (£)|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|