|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what obligation there is on utility companies to observe cross-compliance regulations when entering farm land; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 17 December 2007]: Domestic legislation in England (SI 2005 No. 3459) provides for a claimant to be exempted from a cross compliance standard where the laying, construction or maintenance of a pipeline, cable or pylon under statutory authority is incompatible with meeting the standard (paragraph 4 (3 )(a) and (b)). Ordinarily, if a claimant thinks such work might be incompatible with meeting a standard, in advance of the work being carried out, they should approach the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) for an exemption. This should safeguard the position of both the statutory undertaker and the claimant.
There will be emergency situations where such advance requests are not possible. In such circumstances, if a claimant finds the work was incompatible with a standard, they would be advised to write to RPA to safeguard their position.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the number of patrol days carried out by the Hunt class inshore patrol vessels, Island class offshore patrol vessels and River class offshore patrol vessels for the 2006-07 period stated in the answer of 10 December 2007, Official Report, column 61W, on Fisheries: Navy, were different to those stated in the answer of 22 November 2007, Official Report, column 1058W. 
The answer on 10 December on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence recorded 227 days by Island class vessels and 618 days by River class vessels. This should have read 227 days by Hunt class vessels.
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 22 November 2007, Official Report, column 1058W, on Fisheries: Navy, whether the unused contracted Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron patrol days may be (a) carried over to future years and (b) refunded to his Department; and if he will make a statement. 
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 11 December 2007, Official Report, column 409W, on Fisheries: Protection, (1) whether the Ministry of Defence provides replacement vessels in the event of a Davit fault; and if he will make a statement; 
Jonathan Shaw: There is no specific requirement for the Ministry of Defence to provide a replacement patrol vessel in the event of a Davit fault. It is difficult to be precise as to how many patrol days would need to be missed before a replacement vessel could be provided. Provision of a replacement vessel will depend on a number of operational factors including:
(i) the time that a River class vessel is off task or unable to undertake full operational duties;
(ii) the availability of a suitable replacement ship and crew with British Sea Fisheries Officers on board; and
(iii) the importance operationally at the time of having full fisheries patrol capability available.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to the answer of 23 July 2007, Official Report, columns
649-59W on Fisheries: Protection, whether the annual cost of the new contract with the Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron, beginning on 1 April 2008, will vary depending on the number of patrol days contracted in each year; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Boris Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fixed penalty notices were (a) issued, (b) cancelled, (c) unpaid after 28 days, (d) unpaid and resulting in court action and (e) unpaid and resulting in no further action to date for (i) nuisance parking, (ii) abandoned vehicles, (iii) litter, (iv) street litter control, (v) litter clearance notices, (vi) graffiti, (vii) fly-tipping, (viii) inappropriate use of waste, (ix) dog fouling, (x) noise during the day, (xi) inappropriate disposal of chewing gum and (xii) noise at night in each London borough in each year since 1998. 
Jonathan Shaw: Tables containing the number of fixed penalty notices issued in each London borough in each year since 1998 are available on the DEFRA website. I have arranged for copies of the tables to be placed in the Libraries of the House.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on implementing (a) a more holistic approach, (b) better management of risk, (c) land use planning, (d) integrated urban drainage management and (e) addressing coastal issues, as set out in Making Space for Water; and if he will make a statement. 
The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) published Planning Policy Statement 25, (Development and Flood Risk) in 2006. The Environment Agency became a statutory consultee on planning applications where flood risk is an issue and the Secretary of State for CLG can call in applications where the planning authority is minded to approve an application against sustained Environment Agency objections.
DEFRA will review approaches to urban drainage as part of its new water strategy. This will take account of the independent Pitt review of the summer flooding
and the 15 integrated urban drainage pilot studies taking place around the country.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether his Department provides guidance to local authorities on standards of flood proofing for private properties; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Woolas: The Government provide guidance to local authorities, among others, on standards of flood-proofing for private properties. Details are available via the DEFRA website and the planning portal.
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the lowest economic rate of return is for an approved flood defence project; and how many unapproved projects for which calculations had been made the projected rate of return was equal to or higher than that figure. 
Mr. Woolas: The lowest ratio of economic benefits to cost for ongoing projects (excluding those exempt from prioritisation due to legal or other requirements) is 6.3. Medium term plan returns for all flood management operating authorities have recently been collated by the Environment Agency and these include 39 projects with a benefit to cost ratio in excess of this not currently approved for funding. It should be noted that the benefit cost ratio is only one of the issues considered in prioritising projects for funding and that the medium term plan includes projects in different stages of development, intended for funding up to 10 years into the future.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requests the Environment Agency has made to local authorities to increase the council tax precept to pay for increased flood defences in the 2008-09 financial year. 
Grant in aid from DEFRA funds the majority of the Environment Agencys flood risk management activities (£436 million in 2007-08). The Agency may raise additional sums through levies on local authorities. These are set by Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs) on which local authorities have a majority. Around £25 million is raised in levies nationally each year and they are used
to fund locally important projects which do not have sufficient priority to be funded via DEFRA grant in aid. These levies are supported by the local government funding mechanisms operated by Communities and Local Government.
Levies are set by RFDCs in January each year and, while decisions have yet to be taken on their levels for 2008-09, the Environment Agency anticipates that the increase in local levies nationally for 2008-09 may be around 2.5 per cent., raising an additional £0.6 million.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the effect of combined sewers on flooding; and what estimate his Department has made of the cost of (a) removing and (b) phasing out combined sewers. 
Mr. Woolas: The Government's Foresight (2004) Future Flooding report estimated that currently 80,000 properties are at very high risk from surface water flooding (10 per cent. annual chance), causing on average £270 million of damage each year.
Water and sewerage companies have a statutory duty under section 94 of the Water industry Act 1991 to ensure that their area is effectually drained. The water industry sponsors research on a range of projects related to sewerage systems and the organisation, UK Water Industry Research is, I understand, undertaking one specifically exploring the cost benefit of separating surface water.
Around 35 per cent. of the Thames Gateway lies within the tidal and fluvial floodplain. The standard of protection afforded by the defences to protect against tidal flooding in the main estuary is higher than anywhere else in the country. There are over 300 kilometres of defences and eight major tidal barriers which include the Thames barrier.
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library the data from Flycapture for the (a) number of fly-tipping incidents and (b) proportion of
incidents which involved household waste in each local authority in England in (i) 2004-05, (ii) 2005-06 and (iii) 2006-07. 
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how compensation related to foot and mouth disease has been distributed; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what compensation is available to farmers who lose livestock due to foot and mouth where the cause of the outbreak has been traced to leaks from the Pirbright centre; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw: The Animal Health Act 1981 and Human Rights legislation requires that compensation is paid for animals compulsorily culled and property confiscated and subsequently destroyed to prevent the spread of disease. It requires that for foot and mouth disease (FMD), compensation is paid for all animals compulsorily slaughtered at the market value before the animal became infected. The farmers whose animals were culled have all received compensation on this basis.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether (a) BAA, (b) Department for Transport officials, (c) Department of Transport Ministers and (d) other non-departmental staff were involved in the production of Putting noise on the map, airport maps relating to Heathrow airport published on 18 December 2007; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) whether any of his Departmental staff who were involved in preparing the Putting noise on the map airport noise maps published by his Department on 18 December 2007, contributed to the Project for Sustainable Development of Heathrow within the Department for Transport; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 7 January 2008]: The noise maps published on 18 December were produced by the operators of non-designated airports and by the Civil Aviation Authority for airports designated under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. They were approved by DEFRA to ensure compliance with the Environmental Noise Directive. No DEFRA staff contributed to the Project for Sustainable Development of Heathrow.
Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings his Department had with the Department for Transport on the outcome of the Putting noise on the map airport noise maps published by his Department on 18 January 2007, prior to the Government's launch of the Adding Capacity at Heathrow public consultation; and if he will make a statement. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 7 January 2008]: The Department for Transport is represented on the DEFRA Programme Board that oversees the implementation of the European Environmental Noise Directive (END) 2002/49 EC in England. The Programme Board meets regularly to monitor progress with noise mapping for major roads, rail, airports and major agglomerations.
The consultation document on Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport drew attention to the requirements of the END directive for major airports to produce strategic noise maps. Given that Heathrow is a designated airport under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the noise map for Heathrow was produced by the Civil Aviation Authority not the airport operator.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|