Previous Section Index Home Page

21 July 2008 : Column 737W—continued


21 July 2008 : Column 738W

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) under what budget heading expenditure on vaccination against bovine tuberculosis will be incurred over the next three years; [219030]

(2) what estimate he has made of the expenditure from the (a) bovine tuberculosis budget and (b) animal health budget required for the vaccination policy announced on 7 July 2008 which is additional to original allocations under those headings. [219031]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 July 2008]: Of the £20 million identified as funding for vaccine research by the Secretary of State, £10.4 million has already been contracted from the existing tuberculosis programme research budgets. The additional £9.6 million has not yet been contracted and will be funded from an expanded research budget.

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what cost-benefit analysis his Department has undertaken of pre-movement testing of cattle. [219032]

Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 15 July 2008]: The regulatory impact assessment (RIA) that supports pre-movement testing has been reviewed and updated in light of phase one experience. The reviewed RIA is available on the DEFRA website.

A review of pre-movement testing will be carried out following the period of peak cattle movements in autumn 2008. By then, a full year of normal trading data should be available to assess. This will allow an analysis of cattle movements in spring and autumn, which are the most challenging delivery periods, thereby providing sufficient data for a comprehensive review.

In the meantime, monitoring of the impacts of the policy is ongoing and statistics continue to be published on the DEFRA website.

Climate Change

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the statement in the Climate Change Bill Committee of 3 July 2008, Official Report, column 252, by the Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter to Lord Turner on the publication of interim findings by the independent Climate Change Committee. [219963]

Mr. Woolas: I am writing to the noble Lord Turner in the terms I set out in the Climate Change Bill Committee of 3 July 2008, Official Report, column 282 and will place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of the House.

Climate Change: Regional Planning and Development

Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to his Department’s press release of 19th May 2008, how much the Regional Climate Change Partnerships received from his Department in 2007-08; and how much they will receive in 2008-09. [219001]


21 July 2008 : Column 739W

Joan Ruddock: As part of the funding boost announced for regional climate adaptation on 19 May 2008, each Regional Climate Change Partnership in England will have the opportunity to bid for £450,000 funding (£50,000 per partnership) in 2008-09. Each partnership has been invited to submit a bid for the funds under five broad adaptation themes. We are currently in the process of assessing each bid with the Government offices before allocating the funding for 2008-09. As this is a new programme in this year, no funding was available during the 2007-08 financial year.

In addition to this programme, each partnership also receives support indirectly from DEFRA through DEFRA funded bodies such as the Environment Agency, regional development agencies and the UK Climate Impacts Programme.

Departmental Marketing

Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much his Department and its agencies spent on branding and marketing activity in 2007-08. [212033]

Jonathan Shaw: In financial year 2007-08, DEFRA spent £6.9 million on branding and marketing activity—including the cost of publication storage and fulfilment. The vast majority of this spend was promoting the cross-government Act on CO2 campaign. The balance was spent on smaller campaigns including those alerting the public of the law relating to personal food imports, alerting businesses to new REACH regulations and communicating with farmers on a variety of issues, particularly animal disease control.

This information for DEFRA’s agencies and NDPBs is not held centrally and could be gained only at disproportionate cost.

Departmental Pay

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of staff of his Department and its agencies did not receive the maximum bonus possible under a bonus scheme applying to them in the last two years. [217418]

Jonathan Shaw: The following table shows details of the proportion of staff who did not receive the maximum bonus possible under a bonus scheme applying to them in the last two years. For DEFRA, the data relate to staff in core-DEFRA, Animal Health, Government Decontamination Service, Marine and Fisheries Agency, Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

Percentage

2006-07 2007-08

DEFRA

87.8

84.7

RPA

84.8

86.1

VLA

87.7

86.8

CSL

77.8

76.9

CEFAS

84.5

83.9


Bonuses are used to reward excellent performance during the year and are based on a judgment of how well an individual has performed relative to their peers.
21 July 2008 : Column 740W
Performance related pay schemes encourage high attainment because bonuses have to be earned each year. They help drive high performance in Departments and agencies and support better public service delivery.

Departmental Sick Leave

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many working days have been lost due to sickness among employees for which his Department and its predecessor were responsible for each year since 1997. [218038]

Jonathan Shaw: Information on sickness absence in the civil service is available at:

Published data are available from the 2004 calendar year to the 2006-07 financial year. The number of working days lost due to sickness in DEFRA was as follows:

Days

2004

56,000

2005

59,826

2006-07

48,026


Data on days lost to sickness before 2004 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Domestic Wastes: Fees and Charges

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local authorities have installed (a) bin weighing technology and (b) RFID chips in household bins, according to records held by (i) his Department and (ii) the Waste and Resources Action Programme. [217847]

Joan Ruddock: Neither my Department nor the Waste and Resources Action Programme hold these data.

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment of the effectiveness of bin weighing technology was undertaken as part of his Department’s evaluation of the household waste incentive pilot scheme. [217855]

Joan Ruddock: No separate assessment of bin weighing technology was undertaken as part of my Department’s evaluation of the reward-only household incentive pilots (carried out in 2005-06).

Some of the authorities involved in the pilots used bin weighing technology. The report notes that in some areas difficulties were experienced with individual bin weighing technology and recommends that authorities wishing to utilise bin weighing systems ensure that they have been demonstrated to work effectively.

The report notes that using bin weighing technology was considered to be very effective in one of the pilot areas. Several bin weighing systems also operate successfully overseas. Some of these are referenced in a report produced on waste charging, which is publicly available on DEFRA’s website at:


21 July 2008 : Column 741W

The full report on the reward-only household incentive pilot is also publicly available on DEFRA’s website at:

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the household waste incentive pilot scheme reports for the pilots conducted in (a) Hammersmith and Fulham and Lambeth, (b) Leeds and (c) South Norfolk. [217857]

Joan Ruddock: The reports for all of the reward-only household incentive pilot schemes (carried out in 2005-06) are publicly available on DEFRA’s website at:

Domestic Wastes: Waste Disposal

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what his Department’s policy is on the use of commingled collections of household waste. [217845]

Joan Ruddock: Decisions on the best method for collecting waste and recyclables are a matter for local authorities, not DEFRA.

DEFRA policy is that local authorities should decide how to discharge their responsibilities for waste management and recycling in the light of their local circumstances and the evidence which is available on the strengths and weaknesses of different arrangements.

The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has published evidence on the relative costs of different systems for collecting waste. WRAP’s research concluded that, in current market conditions, kerbside sort systems were likely to show lower overall recycling costs for the local authority than co-mingled collections. However, it also recognised that for some local authorities, especially in highly urban areas, co-mingled collections may be more practical.

WRAP is also studying the management of recycling in Materials Recovery Facilities to see how the resulting material can be improved in quality so that it is suitable for use in high value applications.

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance (a) his Department and (b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme has provided to waste collection authorities on the use of separate individual bins for food, glass, paper, plastic and residual waste. [217848]

Joan Ruddock: The Government funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) published a guidance document for local authorities, dealing with Alternate Weekly Collection of household waste, in July 2007. This guidance document includes a discussion of the issues that a local authority may wish to consider, including the type of collection system to be used for the material put out for recycling. However, the guidance document does not recommend any particular collection methods as being better than any other.


21 July 2008 : Column 742W

Electronic Equipment: Waste Disposal

2Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the quantity of UK electronic waste exported outside the EU which has been (a) re-used, (b) recycled and (c) otherwise disposed of in each of the last three years. [217705]

Joan Ruddock: The export of working electronic equipment does not require the authorities to be notified. This may include used appliances or working components. If considered to be working, electronic equipment is not classified as waste and can be exported without notification.

In certain circumstances, the Environment Agency should be notified of movements of exports for recovery, depending on the waste type and destination.

Records held by the Environment Agency relate to the export of wastes that require consent under the notification process. This would include waste described as hazardous or where receiving countries have requested notification for certain materials. For wastes classified under the European waste catalogue entry 1602 as wastes from electrical and electronic equipment, the Environment Agency records show that no such wastes were notified for export to countries outside the EU over the last three years.

The Environment Agency also holds records of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) exports under the Accredited Exporter scheme. These are mostly waste streams from the processing of WEEE with a small amount of whole appliances. Data are only available from July 2007 onwards and do not differentiate between exports within Europe and outside Europe.

It is illegal to export waste for disposal which includes WEEE. The Environment Agency has no estimate of the amount of WEEE that is illegally exported for disposal.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many UK companies have been fined under the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations for illegally exporting electronic waste outside the EU for disposal. [217706]

Joan Ruddock: The Environment Agency is the regulatory authority for the transfrontier shipment of waste in England and Wales. They have confirmed that one company was fined in 2006-07 for the illegal export of waste electrical and electronic equipment and two companies were fined in 2007-08.

Fish

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much fish was procured by his Department and at what cost in each of the last five years, broken down by species; and what amount and value of such fish met the Marine Stewardship Council standard in each such year, broken down by species. [217882]

Jonathan Shaw: The information necessary to answer this question fully for each of the last five years is not available except at disproportionate cost. We are limited to providing the following estimates of the main species of fish supplied and the overall cost for each of the years 2005 to 2007 and the first six months of 2008.


21 July 2008 : Column 743W
Percentage

2005 2006 2007( 1) 2008

Haddock

45

44

35

30

Tuna

20

20

18

20

Salmon

25

25

22

20

Trout

10

10

8

5

Sea Bass

0

0

3

3

Sea Bream

0

0

3

4

Hake

0

0

2

4

Hoki

0

1

5

9

Pollock

0

0

4

5

Total cost (£)

12,850

14,900

15,600

8,100

(1) Six months

Next Section Index Home Page