| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2009 : Column 1073W—continued
Animal Welfare: Codes of Practice
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the responses to the consultation on codes of practice for the welfare of (a) dogs and (b) cats; and when he expects to publish his conclusions on the consultation. [251075]
Jane Kennedy: The responses to the consultation on the codes of practice for the welfare of cats and dogs have enabled my Department to make a number of changes to the codes which I consider will make them more useful to owners and keepers.
All of the responses together with accompanying analyses will be made available to the public shortly.
Bees
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the effect of circadian disruption on bee populations in England. [252772]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 29 January 2009]: DEFRA has not made any assessment of the effects of circadian disruption on bee populations in England.
Birds: Nature Conservation
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department plans to take during the 2009 breeding season to monitor the effects on wild birds of the recent changes to Schedule 4 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [252763]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and the Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies support a range of bird surveillance and monitoring schemes in the United Kingdom, usually in partnership with specialist non-government organisations. Surveillance schemes may include annual or periodic assessment of population size and distribution, and allow trends in both to be derived. Schemes are tailored to provide comprehensive coverage of common and rare species in both breeding and non-breeding seasons.
In addition to the monitoring of wild birds, Animal Health's Wildlife and Registration Service, which is the regulatory authority for bird registration, has a compliance monitoring plan in place to reduce the potential for criminality relating to the bird registration scheme. The Animal Health team work closely with the National Wildlife Unit and other UK Law Enforcement Agencies and have a jointly agreed set of national priorities which they work to. Any future change in priorities with regard to bird of prey issues, including taking from the wild and persecution, would be considered and work aligned to this. This will enable more consistency and coordination between Animal Health and enforcement agencies.
Bluetongue Disease: Vaccination
Mr. MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of vaccinations against bluetongue disease among (a) sheep and (b) cattle. [250723]
Jane Kennedy
[holding answer 26 January 2009]: Responsibility for licensing veterinary medicines in the UK, including Bluetongue vaccine, rests with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). In licensing a product, the VMD assesses data on safety, quality and efficacy on all species for which the vaccine is intended (in this
case cattle and sheep), and establishes whether the advantages and efficacy of the product outweigh any risks in deciding whether to issue a Marketing Authorisation. Once a product has been marketed the VMD monitors its safety and efficacy through reports of suspected adverse reactions, and through on-going data requirements from the authorisation holder.
Sales data from the supply chain suggest enough vaccine was sold in 2008 in the South and East of England, where Bluetongue serotype 8 was circulating in 2007, to vaccinate over 90 per cent. of the susceptible animal population. Experts at the Institute for Animal Health advise that this level of vaccination in previously affected counties was effective in controlling BTV-8 and its possible spread to the rest, of the country. No circulating disease was detected in 2008.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate he has made of the effects of bovine tuberculosis on (a) monetary value and (b) tonnage of meat exports from England in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [251237]
Jane Kennedy: The Government have made no estimate of the effects of Bovine TB (bTB) on monetary value or meat exports from England.
The risk of contracting bTB from eating meat is very small. M. bovis, the bacterium that causes bTB, is killed by cooking meat properly. Additionally, the Meat Hygiene Service inspects carcasses and their associated offal at slaughter; those with signs of generalised infection are fully condemned and declared unfit for human consumption.
Carbon Emissions
Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to which international agreements to monitor and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from underground fires and forest fires the UK is party. [250368]
Joan Ruddock: I have been asked to reply.
Anthropogenic emissions are covered under the current provisions of the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto protocol. Emissions from forest fires on managed land are estimated in accordance with intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) guidelines and the IPCC good practice guidelines. No agreed international methodologies exist for peat fires and underground coal seams and as a consequence, any emissions from these sources may not be reported by countries.
Civil Proceedings
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with reference to the answer of 26 November 2008, Official Report, column 1594W, on civil proceedings, how many of the proceedings naming his Department as a defending party which are currently (a) under appeal and (b) ongoing or unresolved relate to the review of a Ministerial decision; and what the (i) title of claim, (ii) grounds for claim and (iii) value of claim is in each such case. [242364]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The number of such cases under appeal and ongoing or unresolved that relate to the political review of a ministerial decision is 25. These are:
R (on the application of Partridge Farms Limited) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which the judgment of the High Court on 14 July 2008 is being appealed by the Secretary of State to the Court of Appeal. The claimant's ground of challenge is that the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2006 is in breach of the EC law principle of equality of treatment. The claim is for a judicial review and damages are not sought.
There are 21 cases involving a similar challenge that have been stayed pending the determination of the appeal in Partridge Farms Limited. The claims are for judicial review and damages are not sought. The titles of the claims are:
R (On the application of CMJ and PL Hurd T/A Heywood and Hurd) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Edward, John and James Seaton T/A Seatons Farms) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Peter Eardley) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Longden Manor Farms) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Shaniel Farms Ltd, Mr. D Williams and Mr. A Baird v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of JA and EG Yewdall and Son) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of MD McMillan) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of DC Dennis and Sons) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of RJ Down and Mrs. CA Down) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of J and P Prideaux) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Walter Maidment Limited) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of DC Dennis and Sons) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of RD and Mrs. JL Youngman T/A Coleford Farming Company) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Higher Burrow Organic Farming Partnership ) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Mr. RK Siddorn T/A AJH and RK Siddorn) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of WGA Hunkin and Son) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Patrick George Saunders and Miles T/A PG Saunders) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of EJ and WJ Griggs and Sons) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Robert, Thomas, Elizabeth, Julie and Wendy Pocock T/A T E Pocock and Co.) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of Ivor, Doreen, Martyn, Linda and Mark Hussell T/A Messrs. Hussell) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
R (On the application of JWR and Hiscock T/A Springwood Farms Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which the judgments of the High Court on 6 and 23 October 2008 are being appealed by the claimants to the Court of Appeal. The claimants' ground of challenge is that the Government are not complying with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 in respect of fuel poverty. The claim is for judicial review and damages are not sought.
Georgina Downs v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in which the judgment of the High Court on 14 November 2008 is being appealed by the Secretary of State to the Court of Appeal. The claimant's ground of challenge is that the obligations of EC Directive (91/414/EEC) were not complied with in that the UK regime does not provide for the necessary protection for the health of those who live near crop spraying operations. The claim is for judicial review and damages are not sought.
Richard Currell v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and another, an application for permission for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State to uphold on appeal stop notices issued by Natural England under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) No. 2 Regulations 2006 in respect of the use of land. The claim is for judicial review and damages are not sought.
Departmental Consultants
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of his Department's contracts with management consultants was in each of the last five years. [251369]
Huw Irranca-Davies: From information held centrally, the core Department's expenditure on professional and consultancy services for the financial years 2003-04 to 2007-08 is as follows.
| Management and Business Consultancy— Expenditure (£ million) | |
Departmental Legal Costs
Mr. Binley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what costs were incurred by his Department in (a) legal fees, (b) court costs and (c) expert witness fees in the defence of the claim by Ruttle Plant Hire Limited up to the judgment of 29 September 2004. [252103]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The information requested is (a) £1,131,179.55, (b) £175, (c) £11,241.89 respectively.
Departmental Legal Proceedings
Mr. Peter Ainsworth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the monetary value was of each settlement his Department made as a result of legal proceedings naming his
Department as a defending party where no legal proceedings are ongoing in (a) each of the last five years and (b) 2008 to date; and what the title of each such case is. [240900]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The monetary value of each settlement made in 2008 as a result of legal proceedings naming the Department/Secretary of State as a defending party where no legal proceedings are ongoing, and the title of each such case, is as follows:
Brian John Lodey v. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, £63,000.
Terence Bodden v. Dodsworths (York) Ltd. and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, £120,000.
Antler Homes South East Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (and two interested parties), £6,000 (costs only).
R V W Pugh Ltd. v. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. By agreement between the parties, the terms of the settlement are confidential.
For each of the five years before 2008, the resources needed to obtain the information would be disproportionate and over the £750 threshold.
Departmental Marketing
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in the last 12 months. [243897]
Huw Irranca-Davies: The following figures show how much DEFRA has spent through COI on campaign advertising in the last 12 months.
From January 2008 - March 2008 the ACT ON CO2 spend was approximately £685,000 (press and online advertising).
From April 2008 to December 2008 the ACT ON CO2 spend was approximately £6,700,000 (TV, press, radio and digital advertising).
Spend on non-ACT ON CO2 advertising over the last 12 months comes to
Cattle disposal: £9,000
Ecolabelling: £8,100
Reach: £120,000.
Advertisements placed via the DEFRA Recruitment and Statutory Advertising Contract for the period January 2008 to December 2009:
Recruitment advertising: £381,019.29
Statutory advertising: £70,851.76.
All figures include fees and are exclusive of VAT.
As a number of DEFRA's recruitment adverts are placed through the Cabinet Office framework as part of a whole advertising campaign (campaigns can include the preparation of application packs, advertisements, sifting and assessments) it is not possible to split out the advertising element at a proportionate cost.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |