|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
|(c) England all|
|Qualifying for assistance||Not qualifying for assistance||Total|
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the volume of waste exported from the UK, broken down by (a) type of waste and (b) destination country in each of the last 10 years. 
Jane Kennedy: Data on shipments of notifiable wastes are collected by Government agencies in the UK to comply with the Basel Convention. However, these wastes represent a very small (1 per cent.) proportion of total waste movements, and the majority is non-notifiable, or green list waste. While it is not a requirement for the green list forms to be reported to the Environment Agency in England and Wales, movements of green list waste can be estimated from HM Revenue and Customs trade database. However, these data are indicative, since in many cases the categories under which trade data are reported do not differentiate between exported wastes and products. Estimates of non-notifiable waste movements from trade data have only been made for 2006.
Total waste exported from the UK in 2006 is estimated to have been approximately 13 million tonnes. Of this, around 4.7 million tonnes was exported to within the EU, and 8.4 million tonnes outside the EU. Green list waste accounts for 99 per cent. of waste exports.
|Types of waste exported from the UK|
|Waste type||Exports (thousand tonnes)|
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent discussions he has had with Gloucestershire County Council on its waste strategy, with particular reference to its landfill capacity and landfill allowance trading scheme costs; 
Jane Kennedy: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not had any recent discussions with Gloucestershire county council on its waste strategy. The selection of sites for waste treatment purposes is a matter for the local authority in question, not DEFRA.
DEFRA officials have discussed Gloucestershires bid for private finance initiative (PFI) credits and the extent to which it is compliant with PFI criteria. A discussion of sites has arisen in that context, but at this stage we cannot discuss specific locations as this may have an adverse impact on any potential negotiations.
|Industry total (lengths in miles)|
|Renewed ( i.e. replaced)||Relined||Total mains rehab|
1.Conversion rate: 0.6214 mile per 1 km
2. Figures may not add up due to rounding
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2008, Official Report, column 435W, on manure, what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the use of aminopyralid as a herbicide. 
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information his Department holds on trends in the level of sales of wood-burning stoves over the last 12 months; and what estimate he has made of the effect of such trends on levels of emissions targeted through his Departments air quality strategy. 
Huw Irranca-Davies [holding answer 3 November 2008]: DEFRA does not hold information on the level of sales of wood-burning stoves over the last 12 months. The Government operate an extensive national air quality monitoring network, and data from this network give no indication that wood-burning appliances have had any measurable impact on air quality over the last 12 months.
The consultation on a Renewable Energy Strategy, issued by the Government in June, proposed a substantial increase in the use of biomass for heat, including log and other wood burning appliances. DEFRA is conducting research into the likely effect of this on air quality, and the results will be available shortly.
Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the Governments response to the Defence Committees Third Report of Session 2004-05, on duty of care, Cm 6620, what the findings were of the research into the impact of poor basic skills on drop-out rates from Phase 1 and Phase 2 training; and what steps he has taken to enhance remedial education programmes in the Armed Services. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The intended research referred to in the question has been superseded by a three-year longitudinal study into the broader consequences of poor basic skills provision within the armed forces. The study commenced in October 2007, being sponsored jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Considerable progress has been made within the last three years in terms of formalising and enhancing the provision, for those that require it, of basic educational support within the armed forces. The strategic framework for this support is provided by the Armed Forces Basic Skills Policy (February 2007), which details how early assessment and systematic support are to be provided at the earliest stages for those that require it. The publication of the Defence Policy for Support of Specific Learning
Difficulties (March 2007) provides detailed guidance on how to maximise the learning potential for those personnel diagnosed as falling within this category of need.
At the operational level, there is significantly more awareness across the armed forces of the importance of effective basic skills provision. Although practical delivery is provided by an expanded group of civilian basic skills tutors, there has been a concerted effort to increase the delivery skills of military educators. From 2007, an additional £8 million was provided over a three-year period for support to delivery. The adult learning inspectorate Better Training Report of 2007 acknowledges the progress made and makes special reference to the changes made in the Armys Common Military Syllabus in order to embed literacy and numeracy skills within the early stages of training.
I undertook to write to you in answer to your Parliamentary Question on 3 November (Official Report, column 59W) about complaints of bullying and harassment by new recruits.
Complaints of bullying and harassment are maintained in individual unit logs and upwardly reported on a bi-annual basis covering the periods October-March and April-September. For the 12 month period from October 2006-September 2007, 169 complaints of bullying or harassment were made by new recruits to the Armed Forces. Of these 126 were upheld and 43 were not.
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have been made by changes in the Armed Forces Pension Scheme that prevent regular reservists in receipt of a service pension from accruing call-up time for pension purposes. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: The reserve forces pension scheme (RFPS) was introduced on 6 April 2005 for individuals who, on or after that date, were mobilised under Parts 4, 5 or 6 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 or entered commitments under Sections 24 or 25 of that Act. RFPS is a non-contributory, final salary scheme with no vesting period for preserved benefits. A new scheme for new entrants to the regular armed forces was also introduced on 6 April 2006the armed forces pension scheme 2005 (AFPS 05).
On mobilisation, reservists are given a pension choice. They can join RFPS, join or remain with the state second pension (S2P) or remain with their civilian occupational pension arrangements. If they opt to join or remain with S2P, the MOD pays the contracted-in rate of national insurance and if they opt to remain with their civilian occupational pension arrangements,
the MOD will pay the employer's contribution to that arrangement. Membership is not compulsory and those who join RFPS may opt out at any time.
Prior to the introduction to RFPS the armed forces arrangement which formed one of the options available to mobilised reservists was the armed forces pension scheme 1975 (AFPS 75). AFPS 75 has a two-year qualifying period for members benefits. The only mobilised reserves who received anything from AFPS 75 were those with preserved AFPS 75 pension and those who were already in receipt of an AFPS 75 pension. Those mobilised from, for example, the Territorial Army, who had no previous AFPS 75 award, left with only notional benefits. These notional benefits could be transferred out of AFPS 75 into another occupational pension scheme or into S2P. AFPS 75 was closed to new entrants on 6 April 2005 when AFPS 05 and RFPS were introduced.
The introduction of RFPS means that all members receive preserved benefits for their reckonable service. If they have several periods of mobilised service for which they opt to be RFPS members, they will have a preserved award for each. These preserved benefits constitute a pension and a pension lump sum worth three times the pension. RFPS was not introduced to produce a saving: what it has introduced is equal treatment for all mobilised reserves who choose to join it.
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of armed forces personnel with post-traumatic stress disorder; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: The information requested is detailed in the UK Armed Forces Psychiatric Morbidity Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House and from the Defence Analytical Services and Advice website:
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|